Lol if Ruger doesn't give a damn about making their rifles accurate, I sure as hell am not going to spend a bunch of time and money on it either.
Not when I can buy any of twenty other brands and slap a scope on them and go sub moa.
But I do appreciate the looks and design and classic lines of Ruger 77s. Too bad they always disappointed me.
Mule Deer:
" I've owned a pile of 77's of all eras. While one barrel truly sucked (a 7x57 with a bore that had numerous loose spots, with the tight spots measuring .287), all the others shot anywhere from acceptably to very well. My acceptable rating is three shots in an inch for big game rifles, and five shots in an inch for varmint rifles, and very well is half that. Most of them required some work on the bedding and trigger, but then a lot of factory rifles do."
"My experience has been that bad barrels on tang-safety Rugers were extremely rare, and were scattered randomly throughout the years."
Boxer - Big Stick:
"I've Ruger familiarity and accept them for what they are. Light or bullet proof 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 tend to tip numerous scales."And both of their opinions are worth what you paid for them. It does not change the fact that I had several which were very inaccurate.
Which brings me to wonder why you think you need to tell me their opinion, as if they might reward you or it might change the reality I experienced?
