Prior to 2000 all my hunting was done with Remington 700's and a McMillan Talon, which is basically a 700 receiver with a model 70 bolt. After 2000 I switched to Winchester classic model 70's and have been using them ever since.
Recently my dad dropped of 10 guns to sell for him along with my old Remington 700 classic in 7mm Weatherby. The guns were a mixture of Remington 700's an Ruger 77's.
Couple of thoughts on handling and comparing them side by side.
The Rugers are cheap looking, rough cycling, heavy and balance poorly. The Remingtons with high gloss blueing are very smooth and balance much better than either a Winchester or a Ruger.
Despite being a Winchester guy those 700's sure do feel good in the hands.

I have bought too many rifles over the years . Ranging from $$$ Euro to what you mention.
IMO all have there attributes & they are only better than each other according to ones circumstances, & your ideal rifle at the time/lust.

I like em all!

Well said, 340. I like a good CRF for dangerous game hunting or big money hunts but have owned and used many brands and types with good results over the decades. Likes and Lusts DO change, don't they!

..............And how old were those Rugers??

Big differences between the older Rugers vs the newer ones.

My most recent Ruger purchase was a used #1. The scope base was tapped off center. I found that to be a very careless mistake.

A push feed rifle action will ALWAYS be smoother than a controlled round feed. Remington finish has changed pretty much as well. All manufacturers have made changes trying to respond to perceived demands of their consumers. Obviously those whims change with time, and even with the changes certainly many people aren't happy. When Ruger came out with the Skeleton stock people complained fiercely. Now they are in demand. When they came out with the stainless Mk II people complained about how bright they were. They dulled the finish and people complain about that as well. Everything changes with time.

Current production quality...
1. Winchester
2. Ruger
3. Remington--and I consider Remington distant last.

This ranking was different in the early/mid 90's, but things have changed significantly!

The Remingtons will be the most accurate.

One is a tang safety 77 and they other is a SS mark 11

Unless ruger has really started to finish/polish the bolt races I cant see it. And worse than the roughness is the fact that the action is so heavy they balance poorly.

Can't speak to recent Remingtons but I've heard their quality has gone down since Cerebrus took over.

The new Winchester (FN) is a great rifle. Fit and finish is much better than my Ruger Hawkeye. It is worth mentioning that the Hawkeye was $175 cheaper.

I'm talking about overall fit, finish and function. I've owned more than three of each in the past 24 months. Actually, I've owned 4 700's in that time frame. 3 of the 4 had issues. 2 of the 4 had multiple trips for factory repairs. I bought a new follower and spring for the third one and fixed it myself.

All the 700's eventually shot well, but not noticeably better than the Rugers or Winchesters. The other brands didn't need factory repairs or different parts to function properly... And the 700 bolt pales in smoothness to the new FN70's.

"Unless ruger has really started to finish/polish the bolt races I cant see it. And worse than the roughness is the fact that the action is so heavy they balance poorly."

I agree - I keep reading glowing reports about the Hawkeye and I handle one and any lust for it goes away immediately. The bolt operation is rougher than other maker and the balance is non-existent. In general they just feel rough and clunky.

The FN Winchesters are top drawer for finish and operation, the Featherweights in particular balance well. Remington 700's are hit or miss anymore in all aspects.

drover

You obviously haven't spent any time hunting with a Ruger 77. THEN you might know what you're talking about.

Man, you ain't shootin' the same Rugers I am. Have you ever owned or fired a Ruger, really?

That may be. These guns are "A" and "c" prefix guns, which I understand were made better than latter ones.

I dont need to hunt with one to know that the feel/look crude and balance like chit.

I have. I shot some deer back in the early nineties with a boat paddle .243.
And I have two right now on the for sale forum that I am trying to get rid of for my dad.
And besides one doesnt have to shoot or hunt with a gun to determine that it balances poorly and is rough cycling. Handling it for a few minutes will suffice. Sort of like its not a requirement to step in a pile of dog chit to know it will make a stinky mess of your boot..

And I am sure a Ruger action will last damn near forever and function without issue in the field. So will a 1917 enfield, or a anvil......

Are you saying that the new FN made Model 70's with an "A" or "C" prefix are better than current production?

I have a 1979 M77 in .243, it's fantastic. I have a 1995 Remngton 700 BDL in 30.06, it's fantastic and it's beautiful. I have a Remington 700 in .223 with thw 5R rifling, it's awesome. I have an all weather Ruger MK2 in .223 (I think it's about a year 2000)and it's fantastic.

None of the above are crude or unbalanced in any way. In case it isn't apparent, I couldn't be happier with all of the above mentioned rifles.

When I bought my first CRF left hand Model 70 (second 70, actually, first being a right hand push feed .308 from 1972), I thought it was so clunky and complicated compared to the simple and clean Remington action. The Remington glided open while the Winchester clanked open.

But the Model 70, a .30-06, fed rounds so smoothly I literally often had to check to make sure it actually loaded one. Not having to pop an extractor over a rim at the instant of closing is a difference that can be felt. I haven't measured precisely but it seems like the 70 feeds the rounds at a little shallower angle which requires less force.

They can be sticky at first but if you wear in a Model 70 the bolt glides just as sweet as a 700. My custom shop 70 with "hand honed" action is like that. It and my other LH 70, a regular factory LT, are still the two sweetest feeding rifles in the stable.

Had a tang safety Model 77, a heavy barrel .25-06, back in the early 80's and it wouldn't group with a damn so it soured me on 77's.

But lately I've been hankering after a short action leftie 77 since Ruger is the only company around making SA left hand CRF actions. Like you, I try them in the store and the bolts are sloppy and can bind, they are rough and clackety-clack back along the receiver. But when Phil Shoemaker, JJHack, Mule Deer and a bunch of other folks say they are trouble free and reliable as the sunrise then I listen up.

Model 700 - consistently accurate out of the box, great trigger, many variations.

Model 70 - Out of about 8 or 9 I've owned, about half were accurate (capable of MOA or less) out of the box. Trigger can be adjusted lighter but needs a touch of TLC to be great. But - with that TLC they can qualify as great. Smooth feeding. I wish to God they'd make some short action left hand rifles in true short action .308 based chamberings.

Model 77 - ??? Would really like to find out. They make a left hand 7mm-08 in a 22" barrel, an obvious point Remington has missed. That, and for making a 2.9" capable SA leftie, I feel I owe them my eventual support.

Actually, Remingtons feed so smoothly it almost feels like the bolt handle isn't there.




C'mon, you know I gotta get the maximum mileage out of this picture...

The numbers are correct for those three riflemakers although I wouldnt call Remington a distant last, Id run them neck and neck with Ruger.

Id put Browning #1 though.

WildthebestqcAlaska ��2002-2011

Hey, I hear you. As one guy said he had to check to see if his rifle actually fed a cartridge into the chamber, you have to check everytime to see if your bolt handle is still there . That's some funny chit right there. Thanks for the pic again

I like how Remingtons feel in my hands.

I did like, a bunch, a new FN Winchester M70 FW in .308 I handled the other day. Felt very good.

I like my Montana, especially as a 7 WSM. The extra bit of weight up front balances nicer than it did as an 8 WSM <g>.

Only handled a couple newer Hawkeye Rugers. They felt nice. Older Rugers never did it for me.

One more reason not to carry cold.............

Things seem to run in cycles because manufacturers seem to constantly modify and refine in little ways....and the three action styles are so different I really have a hard time comparing one with the other.

Plus I have been doing this awhile so my opinions are jaundiced a bit.

Early Ruger M77's(when first introduced) with tang safety were nice rifles, smooth working,well bedded,accurate for their time,and very reliable and rugged.This was IIRC 1968-69 or thereabouts. I had a 270 and a 30/06;later a 7Rem Mag;later a 250 savage and a 257 Roberts,22-250, etc

They were a good deal cheaper than the pre 64 M70's I lusted after,and looked more like a classic BG rifle than anything else. I hunted and shot with them a lot back then.I don't know who made the original barrels

Somewhere along the line, the stocks lost the nice shape Len Brownell had given them, the forends got fatter and the barrels were by Wilson,and getting one to shoot was a chore...they became "one load rifles", meaning that if you fiddled enough you might find one load that shot...at least for me.I swore off...

Today,based on owning a couple,the new Hawkeyes are to me the best evolution of the Ruger line....IME they are reasonably accurate,the stocks trimmed and proportioned nicely,reliable,and tough as a tire iron.I know they feel rough but for under $700 I don't expect perfection and with some use they will slick up.I think the Ruger African in 375 Ruger is one of the most intelligently designed 375 caliber rifles around;the 338RCM handles like it has eyeballs.If the damned bolthandle were swept forward a bit more on the 375, I'd still own mine. I would like a 9.3x62.

Other than a 7x57 and 257 Roberts PF M70 FW,which I got rid of,I wouldn't own a newly manufactured M70 until the Classic was introduced. The early Classics were very nice,and while not a pre 64,they were close;I have owned a sizeable bunch of them;restocked many in standard and FW configuration, and used the actions for semi-customs(synthetic stocked rifles)and the stocks were a big improvement over the pre 64's mostly.

Schnabel forends on the FW's,cast metal parts,feed rails in magazines, etc.,made me hold my nose;but I regarded some of these "improvements" as just the inevitable consequences of cheaper manufacture.

At some point,quality started to slide all over,and really went in the toilet when the WSM's came out...funky followers,some of plastic,barrels installed crookedly,egged chambers,bolts that would not close into battery,sloppily fit extractors, and indifferent accuracy were all symptoms.I still bought them but would not hunt with the things until they had been restocked or bedded,and tweaked to the high heavens.Every time I looked at one I saw another "project in a box".And then for no good reason, the next one would be damn near perfect....drove me nuts.Slicked up and tweaked,they work great,and the action is my first choice today to build a synthetic stocked rifle.

Aside from the trigger thing,IMHO as an out of box factory rile(no modifications required) the present SC M70's are the nicest made M70 since the pre 64's.I see some issues cropping up here and ther with some of them, but the 5 that I have owned and shot(3 270's and 2 300WSM's)functioned perfectly and shot very accurately.They seem far more consistent across the board than the Classics, come floated and bedded properly.If I were buying a new rifle today among the current crop,they win hands down.I wish they'd bring back the old trigger, though, the ONLY reason I would not use the action for a custom.

There were also a few Rem 700's and M7's in various configurations through all this. I really liked the KS Mountain rifles in any caliber,and the little Mountain Rifles,both of which I think are the best Remington ever made of their type.A 270 sits at my pals ranch in Wyoming as a spare,but has not been needed.

No Remington has given me a moments problem, but I have seen enough little issues crop up in the hands of others that they ain't my first choice.

I know many on here are too young to have had much exposure to them, but at the end of the day,after all this,as a factory rifle,I still have not seen anything materially better than a pre 64 M70 as a rifle for Big Game hunting (better choices for paper punching, banging gongs,high volume varmints target, etc);I don'tcare about the stocks because I restock most of them anyway.

And nostalgia has nothing to do with it....it's because I have never owned one in any caliber that did not shoot accurately,function flawlessly every time and simply "work" when it was supposed to,regardless of conditions....from minty collectors to old and abused war horses with no blueing left anywhere...a couplein horrible cosmetic condition...this is an observation spread over maybe.....I dunno, but will guess it at over 50 rifles and 40+ years of using them.You can take a pre 64 M70 FW in 270 or 30/06,drop it in a McMillan, and I seriosuly doubt you can find/buy/build a better or more depndable BG rifle from anyone at any price.

There is no other factory rifle I have owned about which I can say the same things.

I am refering to the remingtons. I cant comment on the new FN M70's as I havent delt with them.

My model 70's in 300 ultra feeds like butter and has since day one. My early nineties cmodel 70 in .270 is the same way.

With a rock and a 2X4 you can sure do that.

I own some of each and they all can be OK. I have a KM77 Mk II in '06 that is very accurate. My M700 classic .35 Whelen is a shooter, as is my M600 .308, and the M700 classic '06. I have a M670 '06 carbine that shoots well, and a M70 .308 carbine that's a fussy eater. I have a couple push-feed M70's that shoot well.

I have a new M700 SPS SS DM .308 that is not bad, but not as good as my Tikka. For an accurate new rifle out-of-the-box, I found the Tikka, TC Venture, and Stevens M200(with a trigger job) to be very good shooters, better than my newest M700.

But some rifles shoot better after they get a few rounds through them. So, a lot of this comes down to personal preference. That's why this is a fascinating hobby.

I just picked up a Ruger Hawkeye in 6.5 creedmoor, the gun so far shoots most loads 5/8-3/4".......I certainly cannot complain about that.I think the stock is well designed, and mine has a 26" barrel and to me balances pretty well. Regarding the trigger.......it needed some work.......regarding bolt cycleing......this is the one area Ruger falls short compared to just about everyone else. One thing I think about is when hunting if I do my part I seldom need a fast second shot, but Ruger should figure out a way to improve the feel of the action during cycleing. My son has a Marlin XS7 in 7mm-08 that it bunch smoother for half the price......every other gun I own is smoother."......rem 700, Sako A7, model 70 ew, cz527, Tikka T3 etc. the Ruger feels like it is very rugged...but the need to tweek this part of the Model 77........maybe the difference between cast and machined....."but when you cycle a model 77 all the the way open the tolerance between the bolt and bolt raceway is pretty sloppily compared to most other bolt guns.....thej new Hawkeyes seem to shoot, but if they fixed that I would think they would sell even better.

Thank you, Bob, for a well reasoned and informative response. Don't always agree with you but appreciate learning from your experience

tt: Most of the time I don't agree with myself...eventually these opinions sometimes wind up being conflicted notions as I attempt to pick tiny nits from knats...

My experience has been very limited, one savage, one cz (452), one remington BDL, and now to Ruger M77 hawkeyes.

I've only handle a few Winchester M70's in the gunshops may years back and at the time their stocks seemed clubby although I got to admit the action was very smooth. Move to present time, Winchester isn't offering any lefthanded rifles even in standard offerings such 270win or 30-06 combined with a $200 price increase over Ruger, has me choosing the Ruger with their left-hand short action offerings

I don't find new Ruger hawkeye to unblance, perhaps a bit heavier due to their design but not a deal breaker for me. About the only thing I feel I can legitimately complain about is the roughness of the action but I've cycled the bolt a few hundred times and it's smoothing up.

Plus when you add that Phil Shoemaker, JJHack, and MuleDeer have a good opinion of the new Ruger M77 hawkeye, it has me plunking down my hard earned money on them!

I wouldn't mind getting my hands on CZ550 or Win M70 in 30-06 to see for myself though!

Personally I think they are all good rifles. Need a mountain rifle, start with a remington and lighten it up. Want a classic safari rifle, get a Winchester and dude it up. Want a to hell and back rifle, get a ruger and make sure the function is proper. I've had just a few of each and seen their flaws first hand. They are all good in their own aspects, they are all mass produced and will on occasion have flaws but for the most part will do the job. Just my take on the subject.

Just to clarify the only Winchesters I have owned were (XTR's) pushfeed. I found them lacking in no department.

Its not the overall weight so much as it is the big, blocky Ruger action throws the balance of the gun off. Of course this is a personal preference thing. Add to that a sloppy, coarse bolt travel an the gun isn't to pleasing to me. Again, my opinion.

I thought "sloppy" bolt travel allowed the gun to function much better if and when gunked up with dirt/mud/snow.

As for Ruger smoothness, a few hundred cycles of dry-firing and it is mostly smoothed up anyway.

The A-Bolt is very tough to out do.

Out of curiousity, does anyone know what Ruger actions(short vs long) weight versus other bolt actions such Remington (short vs long) and Winchester (Short vs long)?

Because, I'm only gong from memory here, but thought the ruger actions were about 4oz or 5oz heavier than their comparable counter part. But I admit, tha I maybe way off on weight differences.

Ruger actions are pretty light....not quite as light as a 700 , but considerably lighter than M-70 s .

I bought my first Remington 700 in 1969 or 1970. I bought my Ruger 77 in 1972. I bought my first M70, a Classic, in 1993. Today I still have one 700, and one 660 Remington. I still have the original Ruger 77 and my M70 Winchester.
In time, with use, all of them get nice and slick, particularly the Winchester M70.
As to stock fit and "feel," that depends on what model. The standard BDL Remington is not even remotely the same stock as their Classic or their Mountain Rifle, for instance.
Balance depends on what barrel contour the rifle has. Again, a big difference between the Remington 700 in 7mm Magnum and a Mountain Rifle in .280. Yes, I've owned both.
Then, of course, scope selection can also affect balance.
All of them are capable of first class triggers. The only one I had to have rebuilt was the trigger on my current Remington 700. Both the tang safety Ruger and the M70 Classic have had nothing more than a good trigger job done to them.
When it comes to putting up with tough conditions, the Remingtons take a back seat. Allow a little crud to get into the trigger group, via the safety slot, and you can have serious trouble. Either a really crappy tigger break, or a safety that doesn't work. The bolt release can also stop working. Good luck when it locks open and won't stop the bolt.
I had a handload once that was so hot it blew the primer right out of the case. The old tang safety Ruger ejected the case w/o undue effort. Would have also fed another round if the spent primer hadn't stopped it from chambering. Try that sometime with your Remington(s). Have a mallet handy to help open the bolt. Pray the bolt handle stays put. Rugers, BTW, are built with a one piece bolt.
As has been said, to each his own. I still hunt my Remington(s). But I trust my Ruger, 98 Mauser and my M70 Classic more. E

Is CRF really that good?

I'm not convinced that CRF is really necessary. My old Ruger, for instance, is a push feed. But the non rotating claw extractor and the fixed blade ejectors of the 98 Mauser and like actions have been pretty impressive to me. Given a choice, I'll take those over the common punger ejectors and the hook style extractors found in most rifle actions today. A good solid bolt stop, like the 98 Mauser, as opposed to the Remington and especially the old trigger release designs of the older Weatherbys is another plus. E

Better than good!

Boxer- asking that question will inevitably get you someone referring to CRF as a must for a dangerous game rifle. Perhaps massive cartridges require it -I don't know. Push feeds have proven their reliability to the point it is pretty much moot in my opinion. In a deer or target or varmint rifle it is all but meaningless to me. A big extractor and strong bolt are never a bad thing but for me it is more likely a concern regarding a stuck case than a charging rhino. I have both and prefer the silkier actions of a push feed. Someone mentioned the much maligned A-bolts- try and find something faster cycling for a follow up shot. If Lee Harvey had used an A-bolt there would have never been a second gun man theory. Three shots would be a gimme.

checklist for today at the fire:

• knock controlled round feed /check
• exthol virtues of A-bolt /check
• Lee Harvey Oswald tie in /check
• Begin looking for another forum to hang out
  

Ok done here.

Hey Happy Labor Day all. Enjoy

Interesting and appreciated. I will have to rethink things,as I don't have that many Remington receivers with 50,000+ rounds on them.

The A-Bolts are a much underappreciated workhorse. Tough to stop a Marine.

Boxer = Big Stick

Engage the fine gentleman with this in mind...

I'd like to see you engage a cardboard box.

Oh, I'm hell on boxes.......

Perhaps when laying flat,less creases and emptied of contents.

Found the weight of ruger action vs remington action on brown precision rife website. http://www.brownprecision.com/SelectingComponents.htm

Ruger's action are only 2oz to 2.5 oz heavier than their remington counter parts (2oz heavier than remmie BDL short/long action) and 2.5 oz heavier than remmie adl short/long action).

Ruger action's being 2.5oz heavier as causing their rifles to be unbalance, etc. does not seem to be a valid.

I would suspect the rifle's stock dimension along with the barrel's contour & length has more to do with determining how a particular rifle balances or not.

I don't much care for Remington but would say that Ruger rings and bottom metal,do tilt the table.

They can all do with a little TLC out of the box. I think the for a durable no bs rifle, the Ruger is hard to beat.

Rugers are damn hard to beat. However, they are like a diamond in the rough and need some polishing and tlc in all the right places.

This isnt a battle rifle made for slugging it out with the krauts in the trenches of France. And I dont make it a habit of fouling my gun with mud while hunting.
It would also take alot of cycling the bolt before you smoothed out the cast bolt races. In fact I have shot one that has a few thousand rounds through it and its not smooth by along shot. If anything, it just feels more sloppy.

Bolts are easily smoothed less a single shot. Such wares have zero qualm functioning perfectly in all environments.

I still don't see how Ruger's extra 2oz of weight in their actions make them heavy and unbalance especially considering that in other rifles that 2oz is easily added back onto their action via the need for rings bases?

Now, the rough action, I can see as a legitimate complaint about not like rugers. Same with prefering the three-way safety of thw Win M70 over the Ruger. That too is legitimate reason for not perefering the ruger.

For example, just because I don't prefer some CZ's because of their backwards safety and extended magazine, doesn't take away from the them being a good rifle.

I would submit that a Remington with an alloy shroud,titanium pin,alloy TG and alloy ring/bases will very much allow a Ruger to tilt the table.

yes, i'm sure those after market alloys will definitely lighten up the remington action. Any idea as to how much weight it saves?

Enough to kill Bill Ruger.

think he's already dead thinking those alloys would save about 6oz or so?

That was the point,the titanium did him in. 6 ounces is easily arranged.

Yes, I can lose 6 to 8 oz off my ruger action as well if I chose to throw enough money at it, but that isn't the point or topic of the original post.

Rugers are good actions. Lighter than Win, heavier than Rem. Yes, not as smooth as Winchester's action but hell of alot cheaper than winchester too!

Think all three rifles of this original post have its good and bad points and will need some type of TLC in one way or another.

Just pick which one has the most features that you want and go from there.

You change your tune nicely.

Interesting thread.
For my .02
Mauser 98
In lieu thereof the Ruger is the closest rendition of a double square bride extant. No 6-48 screws to strip. New Haweyes come with steel bottom metal, Remingtons still use cheesy aluminum (ditto A -Bolts). I kinda like their rendition of the three position safety. Nice simple (LC6) trigger. Very secure, easy to operate floorplate release. CRF...
That being said, I have really liked every 70; 77 and 700 I've owned. So, when I can't decide which one to take hunting....i just grab a #1......or was it a High Wall??? I'm so confused....

Hang 2oz of lead on the end of your barrel and get back with me on what it does to rifle balance.

I've never seen a picture of a Ruger bolt separated from its handle or heard of a Ruger needing an ejector spring, breaking an extractor or breaking a trigger or trigger guard or going "Bang" when the safety was released.

I might consider a FN Winnie but when laying down hard earned cash if is usually for a Ruger.

My most accurate rifle is a model 700 30-06. And yes, its action is very smooth and the trigger is near perfect for me.

But the two way safety that doesn't lock the bolt is the one thing I hate. When I carry it through brush on a sling I'm always having to check to see if the bolt has opened - it happens. I'm surprised no one has mentioned that drawback.

Very wise decision my friend. I've got Ruger m77 MKII's and hawkeyes that work just as well and are just as accurate as my Winchester model 70's. During elk season the winchesters stay home and the ruger m77 mkII 338 win mag goes out to do the dirty work. You also forgot about the timing problems you hear about with the winchester model 70's. I've only seen/had one that had that problem but I never knew about it until I had a winchester model 70 (trust me it wasn't my pre 64's either) or the so called problematic newhaven built ones (I got lucky with my newhaven because it is just about flawless). Hell, the old m1917 enfields always fed like a fat girl at a hot dog eating contest. Anyways, just sayin...............

Have had MK2 extractors puke and broken MK1 TG's. All adjustable triggers can be made to fail by the clueless.

That's odd, never knew they made a mkI.

The list of things you don't know,wouldn't have fit in noah's ark. Mk1's were both round and fitted for Bill rings,the TG's of the lot of poor design and material,routinely breaking amidship at their juncture.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a "timing problem" with a bolt rifle? (referred to BSA1917hunter above)

I've had both a New Haven and SC Model 70. The New Haven had a quirk I could never cure, which was that the trigger pull was 1.5 to 2# heavier when the safety had been set. So the first shot trigger pull was heavy, and a quick second shot trigger pull was light. A couple of smiths looked at it and couldn't solve it. Otherwise it was a nice rifle, though some of the hand filing on the bolt head was just embarrassing.

The SC had a slightly warped barrel channel in the stock, which caused it to be erratic since sometimes it had barrel contact on one side. The stock probably didn't like the move to a very dry climate. That was easily fixed, the barrel floats now, and it shoots very well. It's my favorite gun in the field. The trigger took some work to get to or below 3#, and it's not as consistent as a Jewell, but plenty good enough. Unfortunately, none of the aftermarket trigger makers plan to offer an alternative, at least that I have heard of. Too bad. Overall the fit and function of the SC are exceptional, and it doesn't copper foul much and cleans up easily. Compared to my 700, the Model 70 is better to carry in the field. I hike in rough country, and I often find myself checking the bolt and safety on the 700, finding the safety has managed to get turned off or the bolt handle partly lifted. The Model 70 safety and bolt lock seems better for back country hunting on foot. I also like the M70 ejection system better than the Remington. I have seen the ejector stick on a Model 700 in cold weather, producing a jam. Bad news.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a "timing problem" with a bolt rifle? (referred to BSA1917hunter above)

I've had both a New Haven and SC Model 70. The New Haven had a quirk I could never cure, which was that the trigger pull was 1.5 to 2# heavier when the safety had been set. So the first shot trigger pull was heavy, and a quick second shot trigger pull was light. A couple of smiths looked at it and couldn't solve it. Otherwise it was a nice rifle, though some of the hand filing on the bolt head was just embarrassing.

The SC had a slightly warped barrel channel in the stock, which caused it to be erratic since sometimes it had barrel contact on one side. The stock probably didn't like the move to a very dry climate. That was easily fixed, the barrel floats now, and it shoots very well. It's my favorite gun in the field. The trigger took some work to get to or below 3#, and it's not as consistent as a Jewell, but plenty good enough. Unfortunately, none of the aftermarket trigger makers plan to offer an alternative, at least that I have heard of. Too bad. Overall the fit and function of the SC are exceptional, and it doesn't copper foul much and cleans up easily. Compared to my 700, the Model 70 is better to carry in the field. I hike in rough country, and I often find myself checking the bolt and safety on the 700, finding the safety has managed to get turned off or the bolt handle partly lifted. The Model 70 safety and bolt lock seems better for back country hunting on foot. I also like the M70 ejection system better than the Remington. I have seen the ejector stick on a Model 700 in cold weather, producing a jam. Bad news. The Remington is lighter than the M70, probably because of the extra weight of the flat receiver on the M70.

They never made a mk1 rifle you [bleep] dipchit. What you may be refering to is the Ruger model 77R and the plain old round top magnum. Seems your ark has sailed and the fishin isn't too good anymore is it? Go fishin somewhere else bushler. Doesn't that sound like bullchitter?

The ark would need a couple tankers in tow,to house your ignorance. Alas and much to your chagrin,the tang safety Rugers abound in both receiver configurations cited(round and Bill bases). You are only bullschitting yourself.

You're a moron. How long do you think you are going to last this time?

Few are stumped by a MK1 Ruger. Congratulations?

You are funny stick. I'd imagine you're head is only just above the water by a few inches this time. Ark is done sunk and all your ignorance is spewing.

At the end of the barrel vs. the action alone???


Wouldn't hanging the weight off the end of the barrel exaggerate the weight due to leverage?

Imagination is all you have,as evident by your "knowledge" and "experience". Congratulations?

Many are quick to botch balance and have no inkling on how to arrange same.

That much luck in one person??? Makes me wonder if it is the rifles or simple abuse.

What you have hear is a bunch of guys poo pooing because they like their poor balanced, crude Rugers and they feel invalidated when some one brings up the facts.

Tough to put wear on things that don't get used,as you could capably quantify. Folks who actually shoot,will reliably resolve shortcomings in the respective system.

Folks are at the mercy of their "experience",which is seldom a pretty picture,as so eloquently quantified here if only on accident.

The second coming of swampdouche????????????????

And you feel the 700 is a better rifle but continue to use a 70?

You have no idea how much I shoot so your response is just more of your bullshit, of which there is no shortage.

You shoot "enough" to be amazingly clueless.

Back to the "time out" list for you, [bleep], for the third time.

Only you can prevent you from saying something stupid and proving how "much" you shoot and it is rather fortunate for the masses that you are incapable of refrain.

Different strokes.............crude Rugers never bothered me..........always liked them !

I've Ruger familiarity and accept them for what they are. Light or bulletproof they are not,though curiously enough they are oft maligned by the masses for "accuracy" woe which I've yet to see. Though of course I shoot a bit,which do tend to tip numerous scales.

Since your reading comprehension is poor I will reiterate what I said. The remington 700 balances better than a model 70 and is very smooth cycling. The Ruger 77 is neither smooth cycling or well balanced.

you are in agrement with many other s around here

And you're still running a 70?

You may want to re-read what I said....again.

Your point?

Guess this is a case for ignorance is bliss...all this while, buying and hunting Ruger 77s since the 1970s I had no idea they were crude. Bill Ruger and Len Brownell gave a young poor farmer the chance to experience a quality bolt-action rifle with pleasing stock lines and function. Something he could not afford heretofore, only dream of. When I carried my first 7x57 M77 into the hunting fields I could not have been happier if it had been a .275 Rigby.

Now this BWalker fellow has enlightened this ignorant farmer and I will never look at my 77s the same. Sad

Len's stock pattern is one of Bill's best ideas. Except the rotary mag.

My Ruger 77 was the first rifle I ever bought in order to save $150 over the cost of a Remington, which I normally don't do.. I am so glad I did. My 280 All Weather is the most reliable rifle I have ever owned.

There's a curious correlation to "most reliable" regarding use,round count and locale. As a fellow Texan it is difficult for us to ring any of those bells,if only in fairness.

My first centerfire was an iron-sighted Ruger M77 7mm RM back in 1982. One reason I chose it was the cost compared to Remington and others. It turned out to be an excellent choice. Although it has a lot of �character marks� won over the last 29 years of use, it still shoots great and will likely outlast me and whoever I pass it on to.

CH, you don't have to explain yourself. For those of us who have actually used rugers, we understand. The guy in this video doesn't know how to take care of chit to save his life:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRRahHX9Zkg

Just for chits and grins I weighed the tang saftey 77 in 264 I have for sale and a Remington classic in 7mm Weatherby. The ruger weighed a half pound more on my el cheapo scale.
It feels like it even weighs more than that, because the balance is so screwed when handling them back to back.

Few things are as lithe as an A-Bolt.

I say ask the guys in Africa or Alaska which they prefer. Makes a difference when the animal bites back. I'm guessing Rugers & Winchesters. Myself--- I shoot Rugers & drive Fords

Thanks for that tip,it makes sense.

that's classic...

Toad...you ever get a .223AI range report for us???

i took the M7 out last weekend. i just got a rough zero, and was using FF loads and shooting in the wind. it shot better than before the punch/crown, but i will have to shoot it in calm before i can post up groups. it shot ~moa before the work.

i haven't shot the Kimber yet. i havent had much spare time this summer...

Thanks! back on topic...buy one of each!

I've lost count of how many bolt action rifles I've had in big game calibers probably at least + 30 including Rugers and Wby Mk V's which I no longer desire.

I am currently down to one stainless Vanguard, two M700's,
two M70's, one Tikka lite.

I agree with you the M700's have a great feel and although I have never personally had a problem with them, I hear lots of gripes about their short comings.

I suppose an ultimate rifle could be a M70 with a custom barrel in M700 contour.

Regarding all the guns you received if any of them or exceptionally accurate, I would keep it and sell the rest.

You�d like my stainless Winchester Model �770�. It�s a Model 70 action in a McMillan Remington BDL pattern stock. It originally had a Pac-Nor 23� Remington standard sporter contour barrel but I sent it back to P-N for a recontour and to shorten it 1". Now it is what I call a foothills contour � halfway between Remington sporter and a Remington Mountain Rifle contour.

Oh yeah, I bet that one handles nicely.

After being a long time Remington fan, our safe has been mostly filling with Rugers in recent years. I love their innovation and that they aren't afraid of taking a chace on something unique. Also, I think the walnut stocks on their current line of Hawkeyes is the finest factory stock in a long time.

I've got four rifles ready to 'go out the door' should I choose to grab any of them when I get an opportunity to go after moose. One is a Win M70 (which needed striker detent work), another a bone-stock Ruger M77, one is a Rem M700 (twice brazed at factory), the last , the best balanced of the bunch, a Win M94 with very worn bluing, Marbles tang sight, and Williams fiber optic front - straight eject of course. Two are ready with monos, two with Partitions. That they will work great given an opportunity is not a question in my mind, nor is balance a concern. (The bolt rifles each wear a svelte 4X scope which will neither throw the balance nor be knocked apart due to extraneous appendages.) I am a PC hunter. My discrimination is purely arbitrary.

Klik -

What calibers are the bolts?

The 70 is 6.5 Swede with 130 TSXs, the 700, a Mountain Rifle in 7-08 with 150 Partitions, and the M77 a 30-06 with 220 Partitions. (And the 30-30 is loaded with 140 GMXs. )