How many accuracy arguments have been started by Ruger 77's over the years? Too many to count.
I haven't owned or shot a Hawkeye yet. A friend and hunting partner just bought a new one, .270 not .375 Ruger and obviously not the Alaskan. He doesn't shoot much. 3 trips to the range in a year is good for him (and one of them will be right before hunting season
). He is a remarkably good shot, considering, and despite all that.
That said, he took his new rifle to the range last week with another of our hunting partners to dial it in and see what it would do. After getting it in right at 50, he moved over to 100. His first shot center holed the bull, second was almost touching, third was touching the second. I haven't measured the group, but I saw it and I'm guessing it's under MOA slightly.
Maybe he got lucky, sure. Maybe not. Yes, it's only one group. Point is, he now thinks Ruger makes one he!! of an accurate rifle. The fact that he doesn't shoot much may disqualify him in some eyes, true, but guys that don't shoot much make up the bulk of the hunting population, much as it may pain some of us. Put him on here and what do you think he'll say in this thread?
I don't think the Ruger accuracy argument is going to go away, neither will the Remington Model 7/700/7600 one, or the M70 one, or the Kimber one, or the . . .
