Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Rifle Shooter Magazine Jan/Feb 2015 issue

Patrick Sweeney wrote a comparison between a pre-64 Winchester and a Ruger Mk II. I got the subscription to this magazine as a gift from my wife, and I say this because after reading this article it will never ever be renewed. Let me start by saying I equally like Ruger Mk II and the original 77 almost as much as I like Model 70's but the points this guy tried to make in favor of the 77 were simply pathetic.

They both feed the same
Angled action screw is superior
The Win uses 3 action screws instead of 2 like the Ruger
Easier to bed the Ruger
Ruger is lighter
Ruger is more accurate
Trigger pull,scope mounting ease and accuracy it beats the Model 70



Totally slanted article, come on now I have owned many examples of both and this guy needs to find another career.

I always read my magazines cover to cover. I read the first couple of paragraphs, the picture captions, and then skipped the rest of the article. I always figured they publish so many of Sweeney's articles because he must work cheap.

Mr. Sweeny suffers from Rectal/cranial inversion.

I haven't read one in over a year now. Are the magazines still like 50 pages?

There is a great article on an original Winchester 1873 in 22 long...

If that.

Try reading one of his books. Picked up one in a used bookstore. Wasn't worth that price.

I read that one, very informative

I read the article....all of it.

Since 1990's gun magazines have really went down hill. I really believe that most don't shoot/hunt much unless it's a company event. Even Barsness wrote much better articles in the 1990's than he does today.

Dink

Ok and your thoughts?

I believe he used to be a competitive pistol shooter of sorts. Must be trying to expand his field a bit.

Another reason why I pretty much stick with the Wolfe mags, and they'd better watch their step.

Old Jack once said, more or less, that he didn't mind someone trying to make a buck cranking out stuff like this as long as they didn't expect him to take it seriously. Now days if you want to read crap, you can do it for free courtesy of Al Gore's wonderful Internet.

I saw Sweeney playing with some pistols at the range years ago. He is from around here.

Never found his stuff to be outstanding in any way. I quit gun rags....

OldElk: Well....first off, I think they were both designed to be solid, dependable "working" rifles the average guy could afford.

My accuracy results would be opposite Sweeneys.

Put it this way....had there been no pre 64 M70,I would have taken a Ruger Hawkeye (the "best M77" IMHO) ,had a good smith bed it in a good after market synthetic,tune it to be sure it "worked", mounted a scope in Leupold rings(I hate the Ruger rings),and killed every animal in every place and under every circumstance that I have with any M70.

Did I answer the question?

They will both work no doubt about it, It's just these stupid superiority points he was trying to make that made no sense. Would it not have made more sense to compare current production ?

Sure I guess it would....maybe he didn't have a current M70.

Even I would disagree with the article..and I'm far from a Winchester fan.

Rugers "mounting system" sucks. So does their angled lug.

I do have a few tangers, and like them..But hate those two things about them.

Hopefully they have improved the bottom metal since the tangers, cuz its the worst chit I've ever seen.

I miss the tang safeties of the tang safety 77's I used to shoot. That is all I miss about them. I've often wondered who designed the Ruger rings, but have never cared for the answer enough to go looking for it, as I didn't care for the rings. I can't imagine a world where the M70 chases the M77. It isn't mine. I do like a few of the touches on the Hawkeyes, but I doubt I'll ever buy one due to the lefty premium.

Every M70 I've seen, just a large handful, outshot every M77 I've ever seen--several handfuls. Therein the tale is told, for me.

rosco there's a laundry list of stuff to talk about when it come to Rugers..

But they were(are) reliable and tough,even if not refined.Back when introduced they had Douglas barrels and shot pretty good.I abandoned them sometime after the Wilson barrels starting showing up.

And they were affordable for a college student and later a guy with a young familyWhen they came out they were under $150 bucks,came with rings (saving money),and accurate enough to kill about anything,including piles of woodchucks and other varmints. At the same time, a pre 64 M70 cost about double that money IIRC.

My first few western hunts were made with a tang safety 270. I killed my biggest ever mule deer in Colorado with that rifle so still have a soft spot for them, even though I have not hunted with one in years.

Forgot to add....they are rugged. I have never seen one "break" or fail to work. Not something I can say about some other rifles.

I've had a tanger, a MkII, and currently have a Hawkeye Predator with the 2-stage trigger. The Hawkeye is the best of the bunch. Nothing else made in the U.S. these days for anywhere near the same money comes close in quality or features or reliability. Some may not like the rings, but they don't "suck", and can easily be replaced. The bolt handles don't fall off, and the triggers haven't killed anyone that I'm aware of. They ain't pre-64s, or FNs, or even pre-Beretta Sakos, but they are solid, strong and accurate.

I sure hope they included a tube of Vagisil with the magazine for all the pussy hurt Winchester bitches.

Sweet Jesus, what a bunch of chicks.