Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Ruger Hawkeyes Available!!

My wish would be that the new Ruger safety was somewhat bigger, more prominent or differently shaped.

I have found it not nearly so easy to readily and automatically push forward, and off, as compared to a Model 70; especially with a thickly gloved thumb and while in a sudden hurry.

I agree. I like almost everything else about the M77 MkII, but I can't get past the safety. The requirment to shift my grip that much makes it an unusable rifle for me.

Jaywalker

Joe,

I'll double check that "African" px next week.

Scott

Well, I'm betting like all Ruger rifles they are inaccurate. Why did they name them after a pistol????

That is right! I was out shooting my Ruger Magnum 375H&H this morning, cold-so was wearing gloves, it WAS a pain to manipulate the safety.
I still like the looks of the new Ruger, I am sure I will probably score one of the S/S ones!

Tim, I like the way your mind works!

Ron Jensen

A shop close to me has a few M77MKIIs still in stock, 204s,
300Win Mag, etc. Price is 549, 77V in 204 run 649. He says
he might order some Hawkeyes in 257R and 220S when they
come around. He told me sells quite a few Savages and Rugers.

When I'm hunting from a treestand where dropping a loaded rifle always a possibility, the new mkII safety is #1 for me.

My local Sportsman's has a few 77s on sale for about 470$ each....I would jump on one, but I bought a 77 in 280Rem from them last week for 410 bucks....life is good <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

The Ruger safety is a little difficult to operate from the full-on position, but then so is the much ballyhooed Winchester Model 70 safety, although to a somewhat lesser degree. With both safeties, however, leaving the lever in the middle position requires only a gentle nudge from one's thumb to slip off the safety. That's the way I generally carry either one when hunting, using the bolt-locking postion only when going through heavy cover at "sling arms".

And by the way, either a Ruger M77MKII or a Winchester M70 with the safety in the middle position results in exactly the same condition as one finds in current production Remington M700's; safety engaged with the bolt free to open and the safety lever on the shooting hand side of the rifle. Don't hear too many people complaining about that one, except for the lack of a bolt locking feature which both the Ruger and the Winchester provide.

All my Rugers shoot very well. In fact, every Ruger I have shot has shot well. To say "all Ruger rifles ... are inaccurate" is to make a wild claim that is far from the truth.

Hey BYSN,

About the mechanical functioning of the three mentioned rifle safeties - the guts of how they actually do function inside the rifle -

* Winchester M70 -
Most mechanically safe. Full on is striker disconected and striker blocked. Middle position is just striker disconnected.

* Ruger Mark II -
Technically less safe. Full on is striker blocked and trigger movement blocked. Middle position only is just trigger movement blocked. No disconnection occurs.

Trigger block safeties are the least mechanically safe of all options in safety mechanisms. This is because the contact surface area amount between trigger and sear is quite and perhaps dangerously tiny; especailly if this contact area has been incorrectly altered or adjusted in an attempt to improve crispness or lightness of pull. Reducing the tension on the trigger return spring could also increase the possibilty of a contact override ocurring and causing an accidental discharge - even though the rifle is still on "safe.".

* Newer Reminton 700.
Strictly sear blockage. But this is a significant mechanical improvement over trigger blockage because the contact area between a sear and a striker is very much larger - therefore that much more mechanically safe.

My personal opinon is that trigger blockage, as the ONLY option in a rifle's safety mechanism, just plain makes me very nervous. The contacting surface areas involved are just too damn small.

Again, especially if they have been set or modified by someone that does not know what he is doing and the possibly deadly conequences of doing it incorrectly.

Does this all matter? Hell no - unless something goes wrong. Yet, sometimes things do indeed go very wrong. One thing is sure in that you certainly cannot call back a bullet launched by an accidental discharge. There is no "do-over" choice.

Having the magazine charged, but chamber empty, is an option that I frequently chose. Chamber empty - bolt uncocked - safety off. Working the bolt to chamber a cartridge does not really take that long. Taking that very overt action IS the safety - and only executed when taking the the shot is imminent and in your face.

If you are on a stand, or doing true still-hunting (which I seldom see anymore) then making a firearm less safe - but quicker and quieter in functioning - is certainly a reasonable option. But don't make it automatic the moment you step out of the truck. Do it only as appropriate and necessary.

An empty chamber is about as safe as it gets, Unless you would want to keep the cartriges completly out of the rifle and maybe in a pocket. In a practical sense that hardly seems necessary.

Generally, and after over a half century of experience, I don't trust any firearms mechanism as being absolutely safe. I have learned this from personal experiences.

So the old rule always applys when you are handling a firearm. It is the cardinal one that is above above all others -

NEVER EVER POINT A FIREARM AT ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD NOT WANT DEAD.

Thanks for listening to an old man go on and on about this most important subject

Happy and safe hunting & shooting.

It isn't called a three position safety for nothing, In the middle position it is still on safe and just need a little push forward with my trigger finger to be in fire mode, If you put it all the way to the rear position it locks the fireing pin so it can't go forward this is what I call the tree stand position, even if dropped from 20+ feet it won't go off. That I like very much. If the safety seen to hard to swing back and forth it can be taken from the rifle and the little hill's between the divits in which the detent ball rides can be worked down and polished this make it a lot easier to use. Either that or you can pay $4000 for a custom rifle that is nice and smooth and probably won't any better, just my opinion.

What are you talking about? Wasn't the Hawkeye a single shot SA chambered for a.256 round? A .357 necked down to .257.

I differ in opinions about the safety of the safeties. While it is true that the Winchester safety does lift and block the firing pin, simply the act of lifting and resetting it could trigger a discharge. That's something you won't get with the Ruger. Couple that with the fact that the Ruger trigger surface is very substantial and the attachments are cast into the receiver and it is a very solid, rugged, reliable safety system. I do like the wing on the Winchester but understand why the Ruger is more limited in size. Being less obtrusive (harder to disengage) is not all bad either.

Anyone who believes Ruger over-engineered their guns has probably never hunted in conditions miserable enough to truly appreciate and value that "over-engineering." I tend to prefer Winchester M70s for reasons I can't quite explain. However, I know from experience that they don't beat the Ruger M77 in terms of absolute reliability and strength.

The tired old saw about Rugers' inaccuracy issues - whatever they are- probably say more about an inability to shoot or hunt than anything.

Thanks for your comments.

I do not , however, share your concerns about the dangers inherent in striker disconnect safety mechanisms. The M98 is one of these types and I have never heard of this specific problem ever occuring. Have you?

By the way, the correct term is indeed striker. The other main method of primer ignition is firing pin and hammer. I think the differentiation worthwhile. But that is probably just me.

I particulary liked your "safety of safeties" phrase. I think I will borrow it in the future!

Ron Jensen

Given the way the safety "shaft" wedges the trigger firmly against the sear, thus preventing the sear from falling to allow the striker to go forward, about the only way a properly fitted Ruger M77MKII safety is going to fail is if something breaks, and it's going to take a pretty good whack on the end of the cocking piece to make that happen.

Granted, somebody could probably render the Ruger safety unsafe through an inept attempt to "lighten" the trigger pull, but I figure that even then the trigger itself would be rendered grossly unsafe before the safety was. Moreover, I suspect that even the Winchester M70 safety could be readily compromised through numbskull tinkering with file and stone.

The Ruger design goes beyond the typical trigger block safety, and from an engineering standpoint it is quite brilliant as safeties go. I can't help but recall, however, a marksmanship instructor I had years ago who was of the opinion that all guns should be produced without safeties. His premise was that without safeties we would not come to rely upon them, therefore learning to rely solely upon safe gun handling. I think that might be going a little far, but in some ways the old boy might have had a point.

None of the dealers that I am associated with have any of the Hawkeyes yet. My cost is anywhere from 495-500...If anyone wants one my pricing would be $550 + tax (in Texas) or $550 + shipping to your FFL if out side of Texas.....

Of course this all depends on when Ruger ships to the distributors!

Sactoller

Hey BISYN,

Your comments are right-on and easy to accept. Still afterall, there is that narrow ledge of perhaps tampered-with metal that is all that is prventing an accidental discharge in any and all trigger block safties. Ruger Mark II, in middle position, not excepted.

And especially, if this Ruger safety is blithely carried as a matter of course in the middle position - for the specific purpose of making it easier to get off when in a sudden hurry. A practice that I do believe some advocate as a solution to the small safety mis-design.

And such a practice does certainly achieve this advantage, but at the cost of a less mechanically safe safety. And that is the bug in my blankets.

Yes, there is indeed an argument to be made for not having safeties at all, and simply following the mandatory rules of safe firearms handling without fail. But we humans, with us being the absent minded commodity that we can sometimes be; really terrifies me. I would chose not to not hunt with a hunter so employed. And. imagine the law suits generated if a manufacter should be so foolish as produce such a model!

Wasn't there some old-time African hunter that did something like this with his Mauser? Or maybe he would decock it with a cartridge in the chamber. Just lifting the bolt handle to make it cocked and ready. Not something I would come close to suggesting!

Anyway, it was based upon the concept that the only true safety is the good sense of the guy handling the rifle. Which, as I think I pointed out, must be present and unfailingly practiced - regardless of the particular type of mechanical safety on the firearm in question.

Where in blue blazes is Nowhere, NM?

There are now a handful of them for sale on GunsAmerica. CP.