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

The first reply took care of that actually.

That must be some kind of record lol


Thanks for the heads up. Had no idea.

I currently have three stainless Ruger Hawkeyes (7mm-08, .30-06, 35 Whelen) and a handful of pre-64 model 70s. I've owned newer model 70s as well.

I like them all and use them all (and others) for local hunts when the pressure to succeed is pretty low. But for my two recent 'big' hunts, I've taken stainless Hawkeyes with me. I took the Whelen on a black bear hunt on Vancouver Island last year, and took the .30-06 on a moose/caribou hunt in northern BC this year. They accounted for one bear and one caribou. To be honest it was a pretty easy hunt for the Whelen. But the '06 was in and out of boats for the first part of that hunt and then spent several days in and out of a scabbard on some pretty long horseback rides. Plenty of rain/sleet/etc. along the way.

The Hawkeyes are just so darn rugged, and they work. And I happen to be a big fan of their triggers, which are easy to work on. All of mine contain replacement trigger springs, and all have had the mating surfaces polished. The end result is a repeatable 2.5-3lb trigger of an open design that is pretty much fool-proof, and it takes less than an hour to do it.

I don't think you can go wrong with any of them. But at their price point, the Hawkeyes seem to me to have a lot of value.

SR

Id just as soon have a Ruger m77 MKII. The Hawkeyes are nice though, but not even in the same ball park as a classic model 70 or pre 64 model 70. The only thing they really have going for them is they make them in left hand, for the guys that think with their right mind. Other than that, the Rugers still have a corn cob rough action, and you always have to work them over quite a bit, even before they are half as nice as a good ol Winchester model 70. I have no complaints either way about glass bedding either rifle. They are both easy to do, but require differing processes. If you know how to work them over, both rifles shoot damn well. I've had exceptionally accurate 77's, and pre 64's. I think the pre 64 and classic would have an edge in that department though, if we really wanted to pick nits. The Winchesters carry more cartridges in the mag box, while the Rugers generally carry 4, the Winchesters generally carry 5. The Winchester trigger is adjustable, where the Ruger is not. Both easily tuned and simple. The LC6 generally doesn't need a spring, as some suggest. Just a slight clip of the factory one, and a quick polish. That gets it down to a safe 2.5 pounds. All I need in a hunting rifle trigger. I much prefer the shape of the safety on the Winchester model 70, vs the little sharp edged cast one they use on the 77. YMMV, but the model 70 is a better rifle, when all is said and done.

Why compare just pre-64's to ruger Hawkeyes? What about current model 70's? Ruger hawkeye is simpler rifle than even a pre-64.

Current model 70 vs hawkeyes:

Too easy:
Ruger has an excellent ring system. Rings always included.
No rings included on the winchester

Ruger has a simple one piece open trigger
Winchester has grime-collecting box trigger

One piece bolt on the ruger never fails
Winchester has a cheesy press-fit 2 piece bolt that can fail

Ruger is safer in the event of a ruptured case
Winchester, no protection.

Currently, ruger better equips handy carbines with rugged open sights that are tailored specifically for Alaskan hunting conditions

Winchester does not

Rugers Hawkeyes are made in America
Winchester model 70 production gets passed around all over the place.

When the going gets really harsh.......ruger every time.

Well said....

I agree with the above. I like both. If i was to go off grid I'd take the Ruger over the Winchester.

I really enjoy the African Hawkeye's especially in 6.5x55 and 9.3x62.

IMO Ruger 77's are clunky, cheaply cast pieces of crap. The rings are poorly machined, and the recievers are often not straight. The actually beat they crap put of them with hammers to straighten when the come out of the mold. These two factors cause nasty ring marks. The triggers are also garbage, they are heavy and the shape of the action floor plate and bolt handle look like crap. Then there is the fact that the action length isn't well suited to magnum cartridges. Accuracy is also not that great although most of my expiereance is with boat paddle era guns.
I would take a winchester model 70 classic of any era or a pre 64 over a ruger 77. I would also take a ruger american over a 77 any day.

I have or still own models of both as well as ones outside your limits. Winchesters include a 1938 M70 pre-war Standard Grade in .30 Govt '06 and a 1954 M70 FW '06. Rugers that fit your parameters are a ,223 Hawkeye UL All Weather and an All weather Gunsite Scout in .308 Winchester. .

I am not sure one is better than the other. Staying away from the Classics makes the comparison simpler. They were produced in different eras and that may be the big differences. .

Your comments on gas handling are valid. You could improve the Model 70's with a bolt flange but few did.

Trigger wise the Model 70's can be adjusted more easily. On my pr-war Model 70, I did have to cut 1/2 coil off the trigger spring to get pull down to my desired three pounds.

The Ruger triggers take a bit more work. An Ernies's trigger spring and a tiny bit of polishing and I have given good results.

With rifle stocks the Ruger is a very good design nice looking and synthetic, vital where I hunt.

The Winchester stocks were not to my liking. I put an early Pacific Research stock on the pre war and reduced weight and got a drop more suited to a scope iron sight combination. The FW stock was pretty good for handling. It was very prone to absorbing moisture and sweling especally when it froze. I credit two missed bull elk to that problem. I first installed a heavy Carbelite stock but later went with a Bansner which is still on it.

Iron Sights - Both Winchesters came with good iron sights. My Hawkeye UL did not. The Gunsite Scout came with excellent sights.

Scope Mounting - I find the drill and tapping method used by Winchester works better for me. It is more flexible. I have used Weaver, Warne, Leupold and Redfield mounts successully.

The Ruger dovetail system works very well if it fits the uses you want and rings are available. Get outside that and they become much more difficult. As an example, a friend struggled to mount a 30 mm scope on his .338 Win Mag Hawkeye.
Factory rings didn't work and going to bases that allowed using the sope used the built in slots for mounting. They weren't rated for the .338 Win Mags recoil. He had to get som drilling and tapping done.

Finish - Pre-64 Winchesters were blued and rust/glare are potential problems. While I refinished the FW to a matte black the pre-wars bluing has stood up remarkably.

With Hawkeyes I only puchase All-Weather versions. Potential problems are much reduced.

Safeties. I prefer the Winhester style but have had some issues with internal corrosion.

Fit and finish. For me, the Winchesters are far better done. My pre-war has as smooth an action as any rifleI have owned.

Hear things like that a lot comparing the 2. The newest "p64" is 60 years old, think maybe 60 years of use has smoothed it out some vs a rifle with 3 months use in a new Hawkeye?

He probably wasn't comparing the new BACO (Browning) to the Hawkeye, because as you have outlined, the Browning is a POS..

The pre 64's were smooth as butter, right out of the factory. I've had many new ones in my hand. My old gunsmith had many examples, still in the box. There's no comparison to the rough as a cob Ruger 77's vs. the pre 64's.

There's no smoother feeling action than a pre-64 Win, not even the new Classic versions & surely not a Ruger, though, functionally, both of them work fine.

And as for aesthetics, I'll take either version of the Win's with a slicked up set of Conetrols instead of the ugly azzed Ruger rings.

About the only thing better on a Ruger is the feel of the stock when compared to an old pre-64 or a Classic Sporter, except for the Win FWT Classic (or push feed) which is very nice.

MM

This has been my experience as well.

Had them all. Now that im 50'ish and older my preference is Ruger, Mauser 98, M1917, and Mayfair. To me those are the essentials.

I like both but would go with the Winchester over the Ruger every time.

Same here, I like my Rugers a bunch, but I love me some Pre 64 Model 70's.

Winchester doesn't make this little guy. It's stainless, pretty darn smooth, tough as $2 steak, trigger ain't half bad, short, and handy like a mini express rifle. It has irons that show up fast, at the moment an 1-5x Leupold I got for $15 and an Aimpoint 9000.

The upshot is I can throw it anywhere, drag it anywhere, and throw it in the snowbank and it works. It's always setup and ready to roll along with its little 308win scout brother.

Exactly.

What's the point of that comparison?

Thank you, appreciate the time/effort of typing this all up.