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.....

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.

Something to consider for those complaining of Ruger actions being rough, one can slick up a Ruger bolt with valve grinding compound on bearing surfaces; just keep it away from the locking lugs.

It's not the bolt that is rough. It's the inside of the receiver. That can be, and does get, dealt with first thing when I buy a Ruger. It takes a properly fitted tool, some sand paper, and elbow grease and time to work that out though. Have you even had a Ruger 77?

[quote=MontanaMan]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.

I have a prewar 30gov06, an Pre64 Alaskan in 338 and a standard 270 wcf and my Steyr MS rifles are all smoother. The Prewar is smoother than my Sedgley sporter which is a 03 Springfield action.

Left handed RCM? Pretty cool. I am down to 2 Ruger 77's, and they are both stainless 300 magnums. Both great rifles, but if I had to pick one, it would be the 300 RSAUM. It shoots great, and is sort of compact. Only made it for one year too. Function and accuracy on both 300's are great, but they sure did not come that way from the factory.

I've had em and I can't think of a better "properly fitted tool" than the bolt. You oughta try it

It's the goldilocks of smoothing tools.

Since 1994. It works.

They really are pieces of sht. Here an m-70 new off the shelf, reviewed by a very competent Alaskan rifleman:

https://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/threads/new-winchester-model-70-alaskan-30-06-review.2785525/

FWIW both are good rifles, the most meaningful difference in my opinion, and the opinion of a well respected guide/outfitter is the safety is located on the Winchester's bolt and nearly impossible to accidentally put on safe while operating the bolt under duress while the Ruger's safety is mounted on the action and CAN be bumped to the safe position while operating the bolt with vigor.

Might only matter if being charged by something that wants to hurt you.

They are both great and I still own a few of both but have landed on the Win 70 classics to replace both.

The Rugers are great, gas handling is a real improvement, but occasionally the actions are rough almost beyond redemption. A few Rugers I've owned have been smooth out of the box; most need some lapping. One Ruger I still have needed aggressive lapping AND high-tech coating on the bolt (NP3) and action surfaces (Black-T) just to keep the rifle from jamming at the rear of the bolt stroke in fast use. I would be slightly hesitant to buy a Ruger I hadn't handled, or that someone hadn't vouched for. You might be in for some long nights with lapping compound.

The Pre-64 safety (and M70 classic safety) are larger and much easier to use with gloves on. Especially the move from bolt-locked to fire. The Ruger safety is tiny and very close to the bolt shroud in the most rearward position.

In the end they are pretty similar. Where the Ruger really loses to the Winchester is if you want to go with a lightweight aftermarket stock. With the Winchesters you have 3 options for stocks in the 22 ounce range (Bansner, Brown, and MPI). With the Ruger it's just MPI, which is the most difficult of those three companies to deal with.

Because of the stocks available for the Winchesters, it's not that tough to build a 6lb M70 (pre-64 or classic). I have several. The lightest Ruger I have, in a fairly flexible MPI stock, is 6lb 5 ounces. Not a huge diff but the Brown and Bansner stocks are much stiffer. They are also easier to get.

Not that you asked, but as far as gas-handling, the later model Win classics do have somewhat of a gas blocking bolt shroud. Not sure when Winchester switched to that later model bolt shroud (which has two pins holding the safety in vs one pin) but maybe around 2002-2004? It can be retrofitted to the earlier New Haven classics, though.

Rugers are also a little trickier to bed.

I've had both. I liked the ergos of the Hawkeye more. Come to think of it I have no real reason why I got rid of that Hawkeye? I liked the look, feel, trigger, and accuracy. It was reasonably light also. Now I'm mad at myself 🤨