Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Ruger M77 Hawkeye vs Win 70 Pre 64

From a mechanical point of view, merits of each action etc....and removing nostalgia, sentimentality and the like, what do you guys who know a lot about both think?

Is one better than the other?

Would posit that the 77 Hawkeye is safer in the event of a gas escape, after reading all the threads I could. and the Winchester's trigger can be cleaned up better. But is there anything being overlooked here?

[insert Michael Jackson popcorn meme]

If Ruger had a conventional front screw - It likely would have simply replaced the WIn for "desirability".

Don't forget the early Winchester Classics. They reintroduced CRF in 1992 or 93 and made them until they closed the New Haven factory in 2006. They are pre-64 clones with some minor changes. The rifles made prior to about 2000 are some of the best model 70's ever made IMO. There is no clear dividing line, but the closer you get to a 2006 production the greater odds of getting a bad one.

I like the Classics better than the Hawkeye and think they are at least as good as the Pre-64's.

I like the Classics better than the Hawkeye and think they are at least as good as the Pre-64's


Some, such as myself, would say better! memtb

I have 2 90s' classics and 2 Hawkeyes. I consider them all to be fantastic rifles for various reasons. The M70s are slicker and more refined. The Hawkeyes are rugged, reliable "bank vaults".

Choosing one over the other as "better" would be picking the nits that matter to you.

Right on!

I like ALL of the above. Just seemed like a chance to learn more about each than I already know lol. Wish the Classics were available in short action chamberings like the pre '64s were though.

Winchester made the classic in an actual short action but I believe they were all WSMs. If you really want a short action M70, I think Kimber is your huckleberry. Try being left handed as well! This further limits my options but must admit that my "needs" are covered.

Lots of short action classics with standard bolt faces.

In thinking about it, your right. The only lefty short actions were WSMs. I think my brain tends to filter out things unavailable to me.

I’ve owned both and like them both for different reasons. I never found one to be consistently more accurate than the other, rifle to rifle. I like the flat bottom receiver of the M70 with more conventional recoil lug. It’s easy to bed. The rifle is more refined and can’t really be compared to the more modern manufacturing of the Hawkeye. The M70 is more user-adaptable in the scope mount department. I know there are ways to mount a scope using rails that adapt to the Ruger integral mounts, but it just doesn’t look as clean IMO. But, the Ruger scope rings and integral mounts are pretty much bomb proof. You’ll never worry about stripping a mount screw or a lot of the other gremlins that can exist with screwed-in mounts.

I feel like the Rugers feel heavier when compared to similar barrel lengths. An M70 FWT with 22 inch barrel feels handier to me than a standard caliber Ruger with a 22 inch barrel. Yeah, I know there is a difference in barrel contour. Even the 24” barreled M70s feel lighter than 24” Hawkeyes.

Ruger receivers are investment cast. I don’t doubt their strength. They just aren’t as nice looking to my eye. Flat spots, edges and all. The first Hawkeye finishes were pretty dull and seemed to show wear fast. The polished finishes seem to be less susceptible to getting rusty because the finish is so smooth. But, they are a little bright looking for me. I like the satin finished M70 barrel and the matte receiver.

Actions and triggers in the M70 are much smoother. When comparing sporters, I prefer the shape of the Ruger stock. I like a flat comb vs monte carlo. Definitely prefer not having the nut in the barrel like an M70.

BUT, given the prices I’m seeing on Hawkeyes these days, I’d hold out for a decent pre-64 which can be found for less. Never thought I’d see that day.

Yep.

I have two M70 Classics, in .30-06 and .338 Win Mag and 2 Hawkeyes, in .308 and 6.5 Creedmoor. I like them all and they have been very reliable solid guns. The M70's are perhaps a bit smoother than the Hawkeyes, but I'm not sure they are any better. The only negative about these rifles is that they run a bit heavier than many of the rifles based on push feed actions.

Really?

Cool, never came across any Classics besides 270, 30-06, 7mm RM, 300 WM etc in my travels unless they were Featherweight versions. Or do you guys mean the new production ones?

No. G series Classics.

The pre-64 Model 70 is a better action than the Hawkeye in some respects, but not greatly so. It is better than the Model 70 classics as well.
In comparison to the Hawkeye, the main advantages are the trigger, and the feed rails as an integral part of the receiver. In the Ruger (and in the classic M70) the feed rails are formed by the magazine box. I like the pre-64 system better. The Hawkeye trigger is functional and robust but is not adjustable. The Classic and the pre-64 are similar (parts interchange) but the pre-64 triggers are usually fitted a little better. Both are adjustable, but both will benefit from some judicious honing. The bolt stop on the Ruger is an excellent design and functions beautifully. The bolt stop on the Model 70 is also good and many prefer the less obtrusive design. The pre-64, and especially the pre-war, stop is slightly better in that it doesn't depend only on the trigger pin to transfer the shock of rapid-fire operation to the receiver. Still, I like the Ruger stop better.
The bedding system of the Model 70 is good, but I really like the Ruger angled screw. The integral scope mount bases are, and always have been, a great idea. I would have liked it better if they had chosen to go with a weaver-style base. GD

Thanks for taking the time to write out such a detailed comparison, greydog!

It only took four posts before someone replied with something the OP didn't ask about.....