[/quote] A cheaply cast action that requires workers to beat the hell out of it with a brass mallet after casting isn't my idea of well made. The completely unfinished bolt races are not indicative of any sort of fit and finish. They are simply cheaply made, blocky, ugly, yet reliable guns. [/quote]
Boomer, he shts on Ruger products any chance he gets.
Some folks get caught up on the investment casting, it has worked very well for Ruger for a very long time.
My first mk ll was $500 new, my second mk ll was $450 on sale.
Nowadays, my two used Hawkeyes were right at a grand a piece. I agree that prices for hunting rifles is a bit high.
Nothing I said isn't true. I've no problems with rugers. I shot my first deer with one, which I still own. However, you can't claim they are anything but a cheaply made clunky gun. At $500 they aren't bad. Anything over that is ridiculous.
You look at what they went for new back when the mk ll came out, and what a dollar is worth today, the inflation is just about on par.
My Hawkeyes are rugged, simple, accurate and built purdy darn well by hard working Americans. They're also chambered in some excellent cartridges that bare the Ruger name. The Hawkeye 77s are priced at about a week's worth of pay, still meeting Bill Ruger's original intent.
They could do a better job occasionally on final fit and finish. Hopefully they might offer a cust shop Ruger 77 someday.
I'd personally like new Mauser 98s, to replace my Ruger Hawkeyes. But at $12,000 a piece that wouldnt be a weeks worth of pay in my world.
A cheaply cast action that requires workers to beat the hell out of it with a brass mallet after casting isn't my idea of well made. The completely unfinished bolt races are not indicative of any sort of fit and finish. They are simply cheaply made, blocky, ugly, yet reliable guns.
Pretty cool process, watching these guys work away. A machine to knock the casting off, then another machine to blast small steel particles to remove any casting residual. In combination with all the metullurgy checks, looks bit more professional than what you claim:
A cheaply cast action that requires workers to beat the hell out of it with a brass mallet after casting isn't my idea of well made. The completely unfinished bolt races are not indicative of any sort of fit and finish. They are simply cheaply made, blocky, ugly, yet reliable guns.
They may not be as refined as other rifles out there, ones that chiefly cost more. There's really little comparison between the "fit and finish" on my M77s and M70s. I think the new iterations of the M70 are outstanding. My M70s cycle more smoothly, seem to be slightly more accurate with the same ammo, and have a far better trigger. That said, I like my M77s as much as my M70, maybe more. The clunky, rattley, unrefined, yet perfect function, and respectable accuracy of the M77 is a draw for me. My CRF models may have been, and one still is, sloppy in that area, but I've never jammed one on the range or hunting. They all fed, and feed, and eject perfectly. I've got no complaints. I look at them they way I look at a Redhawk versus a Model 29, or a GP100 versus a 686, or a Jeep TJ versus a Tahoe. Not quite as polished, but still that raw utilitarianism is very attractive.
Ruger has managed to produce some lookers though, that function as good as they look. My 1992 MkII Express functions perfectly and I think it look amazing in that Circassian walnut.
A cheaply cast action that requires workers to beat the hell out of it with a brass mallet after casting isn't my idea of well made. The completely unfinished bolt races are not indicative of any sort of fit and finish. They are simply cheaply made, blocky, ugly, yet reliable guns.
They may not be as refined as other rifles out there, ones that chiefly cost more. There's really little comparison between the "fit and finish" on my M77s and M70s. I think the new iterations of the M70 are outstanding. My M70s cycle more smoothly, seem to be slightly more accurate with the same ammo, and have a far better trigger. That said, I like my M77s as much as my M70, maybe more. The clunky, rattley, unrefined, yet perfect function, and respectable accuracy of the M77 is a draw for me. My CRF models may have been, and one still is, sloppy in that area, but I've never jammed one on the range or hunting. They all fed, and feed, and eject perfectly. I've got no complaints. I look at them they way I look at a Redhawk versus a Model 29, or a GP100 versus a 686, or a Jeep TJ versus a Tahoe. Not quite as polished, but still that raw utilitarianism is very attractive.
Ruger has managed to produce some lookers though, that function as good as they look. My 1992 MkII Express functions perfectly and I think it look amazing in that Circassian walnut.
That's far from a looker. The action is shaped like a damn brick. The bolt handle and bottom metal both look like shidt as well. I just don't see the fascination. Especially so when a model 70 has a lower retail price. Rugers retail on the Hawkeye is $1300. That's robbery for such a cheaply made gun.
Bwalker. Ok, we get it. Blocky, ugly, unrefined. All subjective...any you are certainly welcome to your opinion. But is it necessary to repeat it over and over .
I really like the look and feel of the Hawkeye especially. Obviously they are not for everyone. I am not a fan of Tikkas. Others love them. To each his own.
Always remember that you are unique, just like everyone else.
Bwalker. Ok, we get it. Blocky, ugly, unrefined. All subjective...any you are certainly welcome to your opinion. But is it necessary to repeat it over and over .
That they are cheaply cast and blocky is not subjective. It's fact. It's also a fact that after casting they need to be wailed on with a hammer to straighten them.
As long as a rifle functions properly and shoots straight, I don't really care if they beat them with a sock full of frozen horse turds to finish them.
Not really sure what the point of yammering on and on about the post-casting process is as long as they work, which they do.
The Savage 340 was a hideously ugly club, but they do their job, too.
I have a fair amount of rifles, because I like rifles. In stainless steel bolt actions I have Kimber Montana’s, Winchester M70’s (New Haven types), Montana Rifle Company, and Ruger Mark II’s and Hawkeye versions. The odds are in the Ruger’s favor that is what I pick to hunt with. I started buying Rugers when compared to Winchester M70’s they were less expensive enough to make a difference at my pay-grade. Somewhere along the way, I began to like the Rugers. As to looks, I just as soon have a Ruger in a Bell & Carlson or McMillan as I had a Winchester M70. Accuracy wise, I guess I have been fortunate with Rugers. They shoot at least as well as the others. Possibly my favorite 3 rifles are Rugers in 338 Winchester, 375 Ruger, and 416 Ruger.
Bwalker. Ok, we get it. Blocky, ugly, unrefined. All subjective...any you are certainly welcome to your opinion. But is it necessary to repeat it over and over .
If he says it enough he believes some will be gullible enough to believe him. Like Goebbels and the big lie thing.
Bwalker. Ok, we get it. Blocky, ugly, unrefined. All subjective...any you are certainly welcome to your opinion. But is it necessary to repeat it over and over .
That they are cheaply cast and blocky is not subjective. It's fact. It's also a fact that after casting they need to be wailed on with a hammer to straighten them.
Geeze, we're back to the claim of hammering again. Watch this old fella Glenn Morrow run a Ruger 77 action through hydraulic presses and a dozen dial indicators. 3:29 of this video:
Bwalker. Ok, we get it. Blocky, ugly, unrefined. All subjective...any you are certainly welcome to your opinion. But is it necessary to repeat it over and over .
That they are cheaply cast and blocky is not subjective. It's fact. It's also a fact that after casting they need to be wailed on with a hammer to straighten them.
I'd say "blocky" is quite subjective. And "cheaply cast" could be considered an efficient manufacturing technique. FWIW I don't see anything in this NRA article referencing "wailing". And what if it WERE required, why is that bad??
Try and bed a different Ruger 77 same action in a bedded stock and none are the same has been my experience. Do not care for there angled front action lug, but like the rifle once bedded and tuned.
Great looking MKII Express rifle ! Love those stocks!
I agree. Think both the Safari and Express rifle were great looking rifles. Enough so that I bought the first Express rifle that I actually had my hands on. I am not much into blued and walnut for a personal using rifle. But, I could not resist the Express rifle in 30-06. If it is only occasionally used at the range, I have no regrets on the purchase. I consider it and a Browning FN Safari Grade in 30-06 my best looking rifles. My Express is an early Mark II without control round feed.
Try and bed a different Ruger 77 same action in a bedded stock and none are the same has been my experience. Do not care for there angled front action lug, but like the rifle once bedded and tuned.
I agree on the dimensional difference. But, give it little concern if bedding and/or re-bedding one. I hope Bell & Carlson comes out with a stock for the short action Rugers. I have a few of their Ruger stocks for the 30-06 length actions. They are not McMillans but I find them plenty serviceable and fit for my purposes. I suppose much the same as I view Ruger rifles.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/DRfehKj.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/kl0ojCj.jpg)
