Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles A Ruger?

The first Ruger I ever bought was a 243 with a tang safety in 1980 I believe. Not knowing any better I put a fixed 25x Lyman on it and made quite a name for myself shooting far off critters.
Probally due to the memories my oldest sons first rifle is a 243 stainless Ruger that is very accurate. Generally I get a load worked up and sited in and seldom shoot for groups again. Last we sighted his rifle in at 200 yards it put 5 65 grain V max's into just under an inch. The barrels cleans very easily. We also put a Rifle Basix trigger in and I can't emphasize how nice of trigger that is for just a slap in.
If you want a Ruger accuracy horror story I could tell you about my 77/17.

Now that MD's posted (figured he would <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />), I'll add I purchased my first Ruger directly from our resident scribe. Caliber is 6.5x55. He sent a box on 120 gr. Barnes boolits. Loaded them with H4350 (since I didn't have RL19 at the time) and groups immediately were under 1"- some as small as 3/8" +-. Happy? You bet. So much so I bought a used 7x64 Brenneke MKII from another board member. Free floated the barrel, bedded with Acraglas and the rifle shoots almost as well as the 6.5.

I would probably never have bought one unless MD hadn't sold his--I usually stick with Mausers (converted and commercial), Remington and Winchester CRFs. Suffice it to say that I no longer look at Rugers with a jaundiced eye.

I have had too much quality control problems with Ruger. Last 3 needed serious work. Why by a firearm you have to rebuild. I now have 4 Savage bolts. Didnt have to do anything but shoot them. Lot better buy!

I'll add my praise of the Ruger M77MKII to everybody else's. They are accurate, reliable, and eminently functional. Nothing fancy, but once the trigger is taken care of, boy can they shoot.

Beyond that, the standard walnut and blue version is, to my mind at least, just about the best looking production rifle you can buy today. No white line spacers, no black plastic forend tip, no curlique checkering pattern, no jeweled bolt; just classic elegance in unpretentious lines. Sorta like Audrey Hepburn in a basic black sheath.

Every time I talk myself into "needing" a new rifle, I naturally check out what the various manufacturers and importers are offering, but more often than not, I end up with a Ruger, even when price isn't an issue.

I sort of agree pardner but I dont like the flats and sharp edges on the wood stocks of the Ruger. Tuning the trigger is no BFD. In fact its easier then tuning a Mod 70 trigger now that they put lawyer glue on them. The Savage on the other hand has a excellent trigger and with a couple of simple tools one can switch barrels. In fact, one can switch just about everything on a Savage including bolt heads. I am thinking of getting another action and a few more barrels and cleaning out my gun safe. BTW the Savage factory barrels are damn good also.
-Doc-

There is nothing wrong with Rugers. I did have three Ruger M77 MkII all-weathers in 223, 243 and 30-06 (laminated). After tinkering with the trigger and floating the barrel, all grouped 0.75MOA or less with 5 shots. Unfortunately, I sold the 243.

I'm very happy with the 223 and 30-06.

I've been rattling on for a couple of years now about how, in my experience, Ruger is putting one of the best, if not the best, factory barrels on their rifles of anyone. Savage makes some fine barrels also and might be Rugers on real competition in that respect.
I've had Savages and Rugers that would/will shoot groups that some people would insist are lies, if I hadn't had someone there to witness them and they were backed up by more of the same.

I love Ruger!

I have a 223, 243, 25'06 and a 338 all in the stainless with the canoe style stock. I love those old stocks and wish they still made them. I actually see them put them on the 17 HMR, that alone makes me want to buy one.

I have never had any problems with my Ruger M77's. Now the Ruger #1, that is a whole other story! P.O.S.!!!!!!!

I've had great luck and have been very happy with my Ruger rifles. In the past year or two I've converted my entire sporting rifle battery to Ruger M77's - .22 rimfire, .243 Win, 30-06, .375 H&H and .458 Win Mag (one #1 .458 Win thrown into the mix).

I've had no accuracy issues with any of them. They're brutally strong, reliable and work every time. One had a rough trigger (my All-Weather 30-06) but that's simple to remedy. To me a sporter that gives 1 to 1.5 MOA is plenty accurate for 90+% of field uses. Needing better than that is more an exercise in precision than a necessity unless you're shooting P-dogs at 300+ yds.

I swear by Ruger M77's and that's now all I buy when shopping for a sporting rifle. I like the looks of the M77 (even that boat-paddle stock many seem to hate!) and like everything with Ruger's name on it, it's arguably the strongest bolt gun made.

Few factory rifles come out of the box perfect, even custom guns occasionally arrive with problems for that matter believe it or not.

There are lemons in every make now and then, but usually it's not hard to work out the bugs if you tinker with it. Maybe I've been very lucky and a few of you very unlucky, but I don't see the Ruger as being any worse than any of the others.

The Ruger RSM safari grade model is exceptionally well done IMHO. It's a fantastic value considering what it would be to build a bolt gun with the features it has out of the box. Mine is a .375 H&H and it's my favorite sporter by far, very elegant and shoots 3" groups dead-on with the iron/express sights at 200 yards.

The All-Weather 30-06 gives me 1 MOA with 180gr bullets and it's the definition of a utilitarian "go to" rifle IMHO.

The other day I shot a .80" group (4 of 4 rds) with my tang-safety .243 RSI off the bench at 100 yards - WITH THE FACTORY IRON SIGHTS. This rifle is in out-of-the-box condition and that kind of shooting is hard to beat with irons. It's my pest/predator rifle for around the house here, and I prefer it without scope due to it's handiness and light weight.

Well, I may as well chime in. I've owned and shot and bedded quite a few Rugers over the years, and have only had one that I just couldn't get to shoot. That one was a UL .257 Roberts that I just LOVED, but it just wouldn't love me back. Nothing shot under about 1.5" consistently off a bench, though I tried 60 some odd loads in it with various bullets and bullet wts., and I just couldn't live with that. C'est la' vie. I let it go on down the line, and the guy who bought it was ecstatic with it.

Even in the "old days," I can't remember a single one that I couldn't get to shoot MOA or better - occasionally significantly better with tailored loads the gun liked. I glass bedded them and adjusted and/or stoned the triggers, and that's all it took to get them to virtually drive tacks.

The big "secret" to 77's, that I've found anyway, is bedding that angled bedding screw. Most folks I know torque down the screws pretty good when bedding a rifle, and on round bottomed actions, that will usually work well. However, with the 77's, I've found that snugging them down "just enough" is the key to getting them to shoot their best. It's a feel that's acquired, or at least was in my case. I have a notion that the reason for this is that their stocks may (??? - can someone confirm/debunk this?) be bedded with routing done for action and barrel separately. I dunno. All I know is through trial and error, including rebedding some guns several times, I found that a light touch on the bedding screws generally works out best.

My latest Ruger 77 is also an '06. I'd rebarreled my old one (both OM's w. tang safety, because I'm an old SxS shooter and just LOVE those tang safeties for the field) to .35 Whelen Ackley. I put a 26" #4 Shilen SS barrel on it, and bedded it in a JRS laminated stock. Darn thing shoots like it has eyes. Need to chrono it, but the accuracy I've gotten so far is really promising. I'd wanted a real "accuracy rifle," like a HB .308, but with THIS '06, I just have no real need for one. I guess I need to put a high powered "target scope" on it to see what she'll really do.

I'm always amazed at the guys who don't like Rugers, and throw off on them. More for you and me, I guess? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

No, the Ruger isn't a David Miller custom job, but .... if it WERE, it'd cost what Miller gets, and that would deny me my beloved Rugers, so I'll take 'em like Ruger makes 'em, and be very happy in doing so. I like the way the Ruger bolt strips, and many other features that I think "real" riflemen can benefit from. As to its being cast, I have a notion that a lot of guys would be a bit embarassed if they knew more about how many guns and parts are cast these days. I'm no techie on the matter, but when one selects his steels for the purpose, as Ruger does, there's just no real, functional difference in the field. A gunsmith buddy hates rugers, and says you can cut one in half with a Ginsu knife. "So?" I asked him, "Does that mean I'll be O.K. as long as there aren't any Ginsu knives around?" He laughed, so at least he's got some sense of proportion and humor about it.

As I understand it, casting is the way of the future, probably, because it can make things cheaper while making things to forms that would be expensive if done by any other method. With casting, you put all your efforts into the pattern, and the casting process is the same, essentially, for a complex pattern (more involved venting is one aspect I understand it for complex patterns) as for a simple one. Even screws are now cast with the threads and all!

I'm no metalurgist, but I worked in a foundry once, and have also learned all I could about knife steels, and the folks I know to have the most education and experience in the matter tell me that it's a MUCH more complex matter than even the most knowledgeable amongst us really can grasp. We like to THINK (I guess this kinda' relates to KH's thread on "Thinking?") we know a lot, but real wisdom in any endeavor probably starts with the realization that there's a lot we STILL don't know about a LOT of things. KH's comment on another thread about his not knowing the answer to a pressure phenomenon tellls me a LOT about the man, and upped my already very high opinion of him.

The Rugers are very strong guns that fit and function and look like I think a rifle ought to look, and they perform exceedingly well in my experience. I think a lot is posted by the Ruger haters that is very much undeserved by the actual product. But then, I don't expect rifles to come the way I want them to be, and that's included every rifle make I've owned.

Some get a Ruger that doesn't come off the rack shooting like a benchrester, and they decry Rugers, while if they get the same thing from a Remington, they'll happily diddle with it or take it to a 'smith for some work. Amazing, ain't it?

But then, I don't like the Browning bolt rifles, and that's in spite of the fact that they've proven very accurate, generally, right off the rack. I'm not immune to this either, but at least I know it, and will acknowledge it. Now give me an '03 Springfield, or a good Mauser (expensive when I'm done), or a pre-'64 M-70, and I'm a happy man.

I know of no other rifle maker who gets so bad mouthed as Ruger, and I suspect it's because of Bill's statement on the 10-shot magazine ban, or something else that brings the venom forth, and NOT the quality of his rifles. Yeah, they DID have some batches of bad barrels in the past, (I had that .257, for one) but EVERY manufacturer has had problems, and even the expensive 'smiths have rifles returned fairly regularly.

I just cannot understand the venom spouted about Rugers. They're darn fine rifles, IMNSHO, and have proven at LEAST as accurate as the generally acknowledged "king of the hill," the M-700 Remingtons (or Savages, for you Savage fans).

I don't expect to get a $1500 gun for $500, though, so that makes me kinda' backwards and out of step today. Guess I'm gettin' old or something. I also think a man ought to know how to detail strip his guns, and that makes me even moreso, I guess, but .... a man's gotta' stick with what he knows, and what works for him.

Congrats on the Ruger, and if it isn't a tack driver, try what MD said, and adjust the trigger, and diddle with the bedding, and I have a notion you may well have finally found a keeper '06. A lot of guys who bed don't realize that angled bedding screw seems to make a difference, though, so question your prospective 'smith on how he beds them, and how much tension he puts on that forward guard screw when bedding. If he torques it down, pass on it. That's what I've found anyway. Haven't bedded a Ruger in several years now, so had to redo my own '06 twice before I got it right, but MAN! Was it ever more worth it! Good luck!

I just checked out my Ruger 77 .300 Win after I installed Brownells pilar bedding kit. I cleaned up the stock the wood is beautiful under the brown varnish. I glass bedded the barrel about 6 inches in front of the receiver and free float the rest.
My accuracy load is 76gr/RL22 with a 180gr and under an inch is accurate to me.
The recoil lug mates perfect with the Brownell front pilar so one can snug it down. I usually glass bed that area and do not have to worry about torque if it pulls down even.
I like the aesthetics of the Ruger. It looks like a rifle should look in my opinion.
I took a Savage to the range also and changed barrels a few times. That always draws a crowd. Its easy to do. All one has to do is screw it in and tighten the receiver nut. I do use a headspace guage however.
-Doc-

Just had to shoot it; even though I don't have a scope. I needed a fired round to check for headspace. It measures min. headspace. There is a very small burr about midway up the case, and a few scratches caused buy ruff feedin (typical) but so far everything looks good.

The Ruger trigger? Breaks at 4 lbs with just a slight bit of creap right before it breakes. Not bad for a hunting rifle, I think I can live with it for now.

Found some low mount rings (the old lows that really are low and not med.). I will go through the task of lapping them in this weekend.

Now if Leupold will start shipping out their 2005, matte finish, 6x36, with the Post and Duplex recticle I'll be set.

I've got H4350, WRL primers, and some Sierra 165 BTHP Gameking in hand. I've got some 180 Partitions on the way.

Get with the program Leupold, I'm chopin at the bit!!!

GB

Ruger is shipping the M77MKII with medium rings, I guess because so many guys want to put scopes with 50mm objectives on them. If you will call their service and parts department in New Hampshire, however, they will send you a set of low rings if that's what you need. When you get the new rings, you send back the unopened medium rings for an even trade (except for your cost to ship them). It's all done on the honor system.

I had heard that BISYN, and Ruger has always had great customer service.

My thing it that this gentleman had loosley mounted the rings on the rifle. The package was broken, and I knew Ruger would not swap.

So.... I went to another shop and saw an unopened package of low rings hanging on the rack. I looked the package over and the date said 07/87. I asked the gentleman if he wanted to swap even, my med. for his lows. "You bet" says he, "nobody wants lows anymore."

Everything has been too easy for this thing NOT to be a shooter. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Now if I can just find one of those Gray Laminated Take Offs someone NEEDS to part with. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

GB

Low rings were hard to find a few ago and a 1-5x looked funny setting on top the .416 so I bought some other Mfg low Ruger rings. For the life of me I can not remember who made them. Does Burris or Leupold make Ruger rings ??
-Doc-

Leupold, Redfield, and Millett makes them, none in low.
Burris makes a neat cross slot base that mounts to the dovetail which will allow you to use any cross slot ring like the Signature. This base will allow you multiple ring spacing. As good as that is, it does not appear the low ring will be low enough to eliminate the problem you described.

GB

Some of you that've read my posts know that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Model 70 and Weatherby man. However, I do own two Rugers, one in 416 Rigby and another one in 35 Wheelen.

THe 416 had some action work done in the way of polishing, etc and I also had the metal plate that fits in the stock glass-bedded. No trigger work required. On the 35 Wheelen, I installed a McMillan stock as the hideous Ruger "paddle" was well, HIDEOUS. Both rifles were inherently accurate "out of the box" and with them I've taken my two best animals, a great buffalo last month in Zimbabwe and a real nice black bear in Maine two years ago. I know that a two rifle sampling does not establish a manufacturer's reputation but there it is.

By the same token, the absolute worse rifle I ever owned was a Remington Classic in 35 Wheelen. Same applies there as I know a lot of you swear by your 700s, especially their acuracy. I just don't care for the way they look, feel, the fact you can't lock the bolt down, an extractor tht is prone to breakage and I don't like the safety. In my opinion and that's what we do here is offer opinions, the Ruger is a great buy and a great rifle. jorge

In my view, the Burris Ruger-to-Weaver Base Adapter is a damn poor arrangement. I went to Leupold rings on my Whelen and Norma, which are built on 77 actions. My Whelen sports a Leupold VARI-X lll 2.5-8 x 36mm. CP.