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.

My opinion exactly. I don't subscribe to any of them anymore. Occasionally I'll glance through one on the newsstand and always put them down in disgust.

LOL

I have not bought a gun rag except rifle and handloader in the last couple of years. This was a gift , I 'll make sure the subscription envelopes get shredded in the future.

From what I have read on the Campfire, the toughest rifle of all time is the box stock Ruger M77MkII in the skeleton stock. Get it chambered in the 30-06 and the world better get out of your way. Grizzlies, Moose, Eland and Elk just surrender and help you pack them out before they die. Do a special on the Skeleton Ruger, to include some real hunting adventures, and I will buy that next copy of Rifle or Handloader...

Yes sir and have you noticed how much they are selling for these days on GB?

yes... i wish i bought one new in Hinesville GA in 1993 when I had the chance... I had it in my hands...

I nearly beat a co-worker to death about 5 years ago when he told me he got 275 for a skeleton stock 7 rem mag at the local gunshow. Sweet Jesus

I searched my soul and could never find anything redeeming about those stocks. Good grief, they were homely and felt like you were taking haymakers when you shot them.

But they sure were tough!

They made a hell of a paddle . I have not seen one in 5 years since the co-worker sold his at the gunshow.

The Ruger ring system is an absolutely great design for a hunting rifle, returning to zero easily when switching scopes; and losing zero seldom. I don't care if a tapered ring/base design isn't available, as there are plenty of scopes made with more than enough travel to get a person out further than they have any business shooting at big game anyway.

The angled front screw works well; heck I have had a bunch of Rugers that needed no bedding.

Ruger makes the 77/22 to go along with the MK II/Hawkeye as a trainer rifle. A small bolt face model is also readily available, for a 223 companion to one's "big game" rifle.

The Ruger is a great hunting rifle design. Pre 64s are nice, but I'll take a Ruger every day.

prairie goat;
Good morning to you sir, hopefully this finds you well and acceptably warm.

One thing that JB has written about often is that the gas venting in the pre '64's isn't the best out there, though I've got to say right here I've never had a case fail in one I was shooting to test that.

I have however had a complete case failure in a Liberty Model 77 - long story that involved throwing out 6lb of powder that went "off" - but anyway the 77 kept all the gas away from my face which was a nice bonus.

Overall I've been very satisfied with the Ruger firearms we've owned/still own and would recommend them as a good value.

All the best to you this Christmas season sir.

Dwayne

Don't think anyone is disputing that Ruger is not a nice rifle, purpose of the thread to point how stupid it is to compare a rifle built in 1948 with current production . I don't see the purpose of the thread other then to diminish 1948 70's and sell a bunch of new Rugers. Oh wait it is a useless gun magazine

Comparing an 80 year-old design that's been out of production for 50 years to a modern rifle with the idea of declaring a "winner"....

To quote a line from " The Argument Clinic"' "what a stupid concept!"

The question is, did he dream this up himself, or was it assigned by his numbnuts editor or the ad boys?

The comparison was the most pathetic excuse for an article that I have read in a long time. He had to really slant things to come up with that one. As far as one being better than the other - they both work, the points he made were all debatable at the very best.

I have been subscribing to this particular magazine because it was such an inexpensive subscription - guess I got what I paid for in this instance. No more subscription to it when this one expires.

drover

These magazines have completely lost relevance just crazy content that no one wants to read.

I get those $10 offers all the time. I used to bite once and a while, but no more. Most went in the dumper almost as fast as the Cheaper Than
Dirt catalogs.

I disagree about the comparison. Comparing the 77 to the pre64 is valid, in that some think the Winchester the only rifle ever built, or ever to be built. Kinda how the 30-06 is used as a baseline for so many comparisons. Did not see the article, but I started a thread recently about Rifle mag and how all the mags keep getting weaker and weaker.

Especially the paper the magazine's use now. Hell, some of it isn't much thicker than toilet paper.

This.

I have seen bull barrel varmint rifles tested at 50 yards for accuracy. If a "gun writer" can't find a 100 yard range to shoot at he should not be a Gun writer.

I even seen a article recently written about a certain cartridge (I can't remember which one. It was that good). In the article several pics were posted of dead animals shot with different cartridges. The author stated that since the cartridge being written about was similar to the cartridges that killed all the animals, the cartridge being written about was just as good. I guess if you don't have any dead pics with certain cartridge it's just as good as others that you do have dead animal pics with....lol

I guess the only way to Change it is lots and lots of cancelled subscriptions.

Dink

I think that most of the pre-64 crowd, myself included, are well aware of the shortcomings of our baby, but feel that the strong points far outweigh them. I keep my loads a grain or so under max to avoid "adventures in excess pressure", but also for better brass life and to take it easy on that fine, cut-rifled barrel. The weight and low-comb stock I'm used to. My rifle is nearly 65, and hopefully my 5 year old grandson will use it when he's an old, fat man like me.

Dwayne,

Interesting that you brought up the Pre �64 gas handling. I was just reading an article about Mauser 98s by Finn Aagaard in which he noted that the only two blown up rifles from gas handling issues that he had ever encountered were Pre �64 Model 70s.

Merry Christmas to you and yours as well, Good Sir.

Billy

Define "blown up". To me that sounds like a structural failure, not a gas-handling failure.


drover

You�d have to ask Finn about that.

I do know he was not one for BS.

Wish I could ask him but since he has been gone for many years that would be tough to do.

I asked because you cited the incident so I was hoping you would have some further info or perhaps a reference to the article. I have read a great deal of Aagard's work and do not recall that particular reference.

Here is link to a couple of "blown up" rife incidents. Note that in the case of the Model 70 the guy was basically unharmed whereas in the incident with the 700 the guy was pretty well bloodied. Both are samples of one but it just goes to show that there is nothing written in stone about happens when a firearm has an "explosive" issue.

https://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/article.cfm?tocid=477&magid=34

drover

I don't see how a 7 mag would chamber in a 270. 7-08 would but a 7mag should be quite a bit fatter top to bottom, add in the belt and I can't see how the bolt would close. ???

The subject was in Selected Works, in the article �Mauser Model 1898�.

Thanks. I have not seen that, is it a Wolfe Publishing issue? If so I will have to see if I can find it. I will be interested in what he is referring to.

drover

If you are referring to the article I provided a link to it is because it was a 270 Weatherby, not a 270 Win which it would appear that you are thinking of.

"It was a very small mistake with very big consequences; he fired a 7mm Remington Magnum cartridge in a rifle chambered for .270 Weatherby."

drover

It is a Wolfe Publishing book. My copy is from 1997.

I can scan and e-mail you the page if you�d like.

I'll bet all you 64minus gropies like 1911's also. I like Sweeny's writing.

First of all learn how to spell both groupies and Sweeney. I have no dog in this fight I like both rifles but let me spell it out yet again, you cannot compare a rifle built 65 years ago with current production. If you are going to do a comparison then you compare rifles built in that era. Is that so difficult? Yeah I like 1911's but I like my Glocks better.

One lousy (in your estimation) story and you'll never read the magazine again? There are other opinions out there ya know. Like mine for instance I think a pre 64 is a cool looking sculpture of metal and a pretty good action but when its go time I'd choose a mk11 Ruger. If I had a pre 64 I'd sell it not my cup of tea. And I think about all readers understand the age difference of the two rifles no? What's wrong with comparing something old to something new? Ah well these first world problems can be troublesome I guess.

Not just one lousy article it is never ending litany of lousy articles. Why compare with current production? Well because as technology advances so will weapons correct? There are however designs that are timeless, that is why Ruger introduced their 77 when everyone else dropped CRF. Its easy to improve on a design and learn from Winchesters mistakes.

A roll of Charmin toilet paper provides a better reading experience BTW.

I bought a Ruger Hawkeye last spring and, after I altered the mag well to relieve binding stress on the action, the thing shoots 'lights-out'. A buddy of mine showed me a recent write up in Sporting Classics on the Ruger Model 77. As I read it I could tell it was just a generic 3 page marketing blurb about the 77 basics, nothing based on range work.

I couldn't help but notice the two page advertising spread on Ruger at the front end of the issue, maybe even before the contents page. I've purchased quite a few issues of SC and that was the first big ad, certainly the most expensive, for Ruger I've seen in that magazine.

I own a late model 70 by FN as well the Ruger hawkeye, and couldn't be more satisfied with both.