Trying to understand why a man would want a bolt action rifle in 357 mag

I would kinda like one as a step up rifle for my kid when he gets a little older.

Plus, I have probably 30 lbs. of brass to feed it.

I have a few serious hunting rifles. Sometimes I buy something just because it's fun. If you can consistently hit at 300 yards with a .357 maggie, 500 with an '06 should be a chip shot.

Brian Pearce has a good article on these rifles in the July issue of Rifle Magazine. If you don't subscribe, hunt one up.

Why does anybody need a logical reason to own one? I have mine because I wanted it...and we all know how I can be if I don't get what I want.

My friend's 10-year old son asked to borrow it for his first deer hunt this fall and it should be a good choice for him; small, light, easy on the ears and shoulder, and powerful enough for his needs at this point.

With all the nice used Marlin 44 and 357 rifles out there that are even handier, I don't see the need to buy one.

Not everyone likes lever guns. (ducking)

If you can find one. In my area, anything other that a 30-30 is scarse. If you do find a Marlin in 44 or 357, they are quite expensive. Other parts of the state/country may be different.

Need doesn't have much to do with the purchase of a second rifle. They do a few things better than lever guns, and visa versa.

The SS version is better in wet weather.

On assumption one hits the target with the first shot, I'm at a loss to see the superiority of a lever gun and I own several of the latter.

The 77/44 is lighter than the Marlin and probably more accurate if loaded properly.

You won't feel guilty if you turn your Ruger around and paddle the canoe with it.

Can't wait to get my 77/44 out in the woods this year. Being short and light it should be super handy in the woods where I spend most my time.

I own the 77/.357, have owned the Marlin .44 and .357. Neither of the Marlins would hold a candle to the Ruger in terms of accuracy.

The little Ruger is just has handy as the Marlins. It is more user friendly, with a scope mounted.

I do a lot of walk around hunting and the .357 is great for close range work.

I've got a couple box blinds in East Tx. that are in thick growth and both have short 75-80 yard shooting lanes. The 158 grain jacketed flat points are deadly on porkers and small deer at these ranges.

I have had some pretty accurate Marlin 357 rifles especially. Your Ruger must be a tackdriver. I cannot see how the Ruger is any more user friendly with a scope mounted. I have a Weaver 2.5X mounted nice and low on my little 1894C and it is very user friendly. Equipped with a receiver sight, there is no bolt action rifle handier than a levergun. You can wrap your hand around the reciever and carry it all day like it is not even there.

Sounds like this rifle and cartridge combination will be around for many years.

I loved my Marlins, sans scopes. I've got such a big head I couldn't get a decent cheek weld, even with low mounts.

Neither of my 2 .44's or the .357 Marlin would avg. less than 4" at 100 yds. The 77/.357 will easily avg. ~2" at 100, for 4 shots.

I actually held on to the last Marlin .44(a 1981 model) till I got the Ruger.

For me, maybe not others, the Ruger balances and points perfectly.

I did at one time have a little Marlin in .32-20 that was amazing at 50 yds. I just sold a Savage 23 in .32-20 that was very accurate as well.

YMMV

At one time I did get Rifle. When they stopped Rifles and Woodsmoke / Barsness,
I let the subscription run itself out. I'll hunt one up.

I would prefer the bolt gun.


Travis

Me too, Travis.

I can't really say why, but the idea of a .357 and a .44 bolt gun really appeals to me. Probably has something to do with the impulsive, irrational rebel side of me.

To me it comes down to scope use. If you want a scope use the ruger, if not the leverguns are, for me, the better choice. I can definetly make faster hits with a lever.

I do not like the feel of a levergun with a scope on it.
Exception being some of the lever action .22's. They are not so bad with the smaller scopes on them.

I'm thinking my boys wouldn't hate it to start their deer hunting careers here in Indiana with the 77/357 (meets are regs for rifle). Anyone know if the inletting is the same for the 77/357 as the 77/22?

I didn't know untill now how light this rifle is.At 5.5 lbs I am going to have to take a closer look at it for my daughters first deer rifle.This is half the price of the Kimber we were considering and just as light.

How low can you mount a small objective scope? The pictures so far seem to have higher than necessary mounts.Is bolt clearence an issue?

We were looking into the Kimber in 223.Recoil in my 7 lb rifle with 100 grain 243 factory loads,was a bit too much for my daughter.What would recoil be like in one of these 77/357's ? She is 4'4" tall and 65lbs.

I like the idea of being able to swap out the trigger, and stock with some quality shizz.

And, if you decide to suppress something, these are THE route to go.


Travis

About as low as you want. I used the Ruger supplied rings to mount a Millett SP1 which was used to print the target previously posted. Note that target was fired offhand. It's a good system capable of fine accuracy beyond 100 yards. Bolt clearance is a non-issue with that particular sight.

My take on the rifle is that it's an effective tool. I use it when the weather sucks. The difference between the Ruger and a lever gun is not function or handling, it's just a personal choice. With the red dot it snap shoots as well as any of my leverguns, all of which have either a scope or aperture sights. Neck shot a buck some years back with the Win 94 in mid jump at about 15 yards...Williams aperture sight at play. I can do the same with the Ruger any day of the week.

Travis,

Had not thought about the silencer issue. That would be a bad mama jama in .44. 300 grain Keith bullet at 800 fps would make a heck of a meatpole filler, if it will cycle them. Where legal ofcourse.

FWIW, I did a fair bit of load testing with the 77/44, all with various paper patched bullets and round balls and over a broad range of velocities. Don't care much whether one uses GG or paper patch, but I would suggest lead for low velocity shooting. The more comical loads were with the round balls, being sized to .422" and patched to .430, both as single ball loads and multi-ball loads. They are useful, reasonably accurate and at low velocity fairly quiet without a muffler.

The 300 grain cupped base FRN bullet used in the loads peaked at about 1,400 fps insofar as accuracy went. They shot well at velocities in the 600 fps range but issued a rather odd flat report. They would be easy to silence. The target above was fired with a FBFRN 300 grain pure lead bullet paper patched over 17.0 grains of Li'l Gun and a card wad. Right around 1600 fps. Dunno you could shut that one up.

All in all, over 1,000 rounds thru the gun and it still shoots very well and with little attention required. Near about a perfect woods or truck gun by my experience.

Recovered from dead deer. Broke both forelegs:

After work last night, I got the new issue of Rifle. It has not just the 77/44 & 77/357 story
but also one on the 6.5 Creedmore. And John Barsness option on hunting rifle triggers. Good Stuff

My friend and I built one. (His money, my support) it was a beautiful, beautiful thing.

240gr going 950 fed great, absolutely silent, and plenty deadly.

I believe we tried the 300's but they would not stabilize in the factory tube. His was fully suppressed, not a can, and he saved a few bucks using the factory tube. If I do one, I would go with a Douglas and faster twist.


Travis

Travis, what twist is Ruger using in that gun? I ask because I've messed around with a few different 44's including an early model Ruger carbine. It had the 1-38" twist and barely stabilized 300gr XTP's at 50 yards. Anything beyond about 50 was a crap shoot. I settled on 270gr Speer Gold Dots (flat point) for my heavy in that particular gun.

I was under the impression that more recent models had gone to the 1-20" twist rate, which seems like it would stabilize the 300's for your buddy, depending on construction/shape. Maybe it was the low velocity and resulting lack of RPM?

Anyway, these Ruger rifles seem like they'd be a ball to play with, especially with a can on 'em. Unfortunately, my home state doesn't allow suppressors for hunting. Idiots.

Dan, I would be really interested to learn more about the various round ball loads you've put together. I've thought many times about buying some soft lead round balls about 3-5 thousandths larger than bore diameter for both my 44's and 357's and try to come up with a soft shooting, quiet load for pests and plinking.

His was a stainless, so it could not have been too old. I'm sure if you stood on them, you'd have the RPM but everything we were trying was 900-1000ish.

Texas did not allow them for hunting of game, but pigs ain't game...


Travis

Texas I believe just approved them this Spring.

My thought was that if you have to keep unde 100 fps to keep the sound down a heavier slug would be the medicine for it. I am with you on the custom tube for stabilization.

Sounds like a great set up though.

Scott, don't know how much I can help as I've no experience with nekkid round ball. A few suggestions if I may. Speer .430" round balls, lube with thinned Alox and dust with motor mica or graphite prior to seating. Start with 3 grains of Bullseye under the ball. Seat to ball equator and use a mild taper crimp or lacking that die a gentle kiss with a regular crimp die.

Somewhere around 2 grains of powder they sound like a healthy beer fart from a rifle. Dunno you'd expect that with a revolver. LPP primer BTW.

You might get some leading out of this if you try to run up the velocity.

You can make RBs run at 2400 fps but you can't hit a barn if you're standing inside.

Thanks Dan. One of these days I'm just going to take the plunge and try some round balls.

My plan was to go with a ball slightly over size, possibly using an unsized case if need be to prevent bulging the case mouth and to reduce the need for belling the case mouth. My thinking is that the slightly oversized ball will provide a bit more bearing surface when it swages down to fit the bore. More bearing surface should keep stripping down and help keep leading to a minimum.

That's my plan anyway.

Ruger CS answered my question yesterday, the stocks are NOT interchangable.

I don't have much experience with raw lead down barrels, being disturbed and all that. Little bit of shooting retail lead bullets in various guns over the years, not much more than that until recent times. Began the excursion away from jacketed bullets in earnest back in '99, mostly with paper patch. My life continues down that tortured path. Dunno what I'm going to do with 2 lifetimes supply of jacketed bullets, but I'll figure it out.

Regarding your plan, I doubt you need to oversize the balls to increase bearing surface if the velocity is mild. Best guess starting geometry for lead is groove diameter + .001". The barrel on my Ruger is .430 in the groove. My limited experience says if you keep the loads mild, stripping won't be an issue. When the balls engage the rifling there is some swagging involved right there, so you'll get some bearing surface improvement. A single ball is light and not hampered much by inertia or prone to develop great pressure for a given charge.

I drove some of the balls from the .44 fairly hard a few times and they shot well. Now they were paper patched, but that does not infer resistance to stripping, but does mitigate leading completely.

I would not speculate about how much pressure you can put on them before leading presents, but I ran the patched balls up to around 1,800 fps without stripping. 25 yard groups ran about 2" offhand. My recollection is the balls weighed something over 100 grains, give or take, and when I used the double ball loads I used load data appropriate for that weight. They printed as two groups, one more or less to POA, the second at 10 o'clock and about 6-8" out. Dunno why that was so but they were very consistent in that.

Was the 77/44 offered with a boat paddle Zytel stock? I think I'd have to have one! Whoa, how cool would a 96/44 in a Zytel stock be?
DMc

Dunno it was. I dunno. Might could put some pink on the stock and call it San Fran Camo?

77/44 is the only gun I got what has P.A.D.I. certification for cave divin'. It is easily humiliated in the harsh glare of sunlight.

The problem in mounting the scope on the Ruger is not the objective, its the eyepiece. The bolt locks up right in front of the rear ring. The Ruger has a high "bolt lift". You have to use medium rings in most cases to allow the bolt to lift and clear the eyepiece during cycling. That's a negative for me. But not one that would be a deal killer. From the reports I've read, the extra barrel length in getting users a additional 200fps over a revolver.

GB, when I first began working with the gun I had a Weaver K2.5 on board. That was over 10 years ago but I don't recall any problems of that sort. Used the rings supplied by Ruger, high, low, in-between, I dunno.

Ruger almost always supplies their Medium rings, which will allow you to mount up to a 42-44 mm objective. I usually send them back for the lows. I like my scope mounted as low as possible.

+1. I bought mine just after Christmas just because I like the way it feels in my hands... And I am left handed... Mounted an NECG rear peep on it to "keep it simple".

Finally took it out to sight it in this afternoon. .38 Spcl handloads with 158gr cast FRN bullets were shooting into about 1" two shot groups at 50 yards. Given that I am 55 years old and legally blind without my glasses, I figured that was pretty respectable.

Have 20 to 30 lbs of brass. Figure 2 cents for powder, 4 cents for primer, 14 cents for a cheap cast bullet, gets me 20 cents a round for hand loads. SIL has several hundred lbs of scrap lead pipe he uses for casting sinkers. Considering casting and tumble lubing which should get me down to about 6 cents per round for hand loads. Less than what I pay for premium .22LR ammo...

Just read Pearce's article last night. Left me wondering given the barrel "work" he had to do. I am more than content with my old Ruger Carbine 44 Mag. With some bedding wotk that I have done it is a consistent 2 1/2" gun at 100 yards with the 250 gr Partition. It is my truck gun in Idaho paired with my older yet 4 5/8" Flattop 44 Mag loaded the same.

Now that little rifle or similar in something like the 475 Linebaugh or 480 Ruger, now that would be fun.

Not sure the action would take the pressure generated by those cartridges.

Made a preliminary gun trade offer today for both a 77/357 and a 77/44.

The way I see it is, you can unload them. I ended up using our BLR in 358 and the model 88 Winchester in 308 for my son and daughter because it was so easy to make sure the guns were safely unloaded when we got into a car.

I have two grandsons coming up and I think these carbines will be a great pair of beginners rifles for them.

Personally I never owned a 22 rimfire rifle until I was in my 40's, and I still learned how to shot. I see my stock of rimfire rounds as being to valuable to shoot up in the old way. Plinking has to be redefined thanks to the New World Order.

Trying to understand why they don't make it in 357 maximum or 500S&W.

The action is not strong enough? These guns make a great silenced guns.