Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Best way to shave weight off a Ruger 77mkII

You can save some weight replacing the stock. Options include, in order of rising cost, a Ruger factory synthetic stock (I have one on my MK II .30-06), a B&C carbelite (I have this on my tang safety .30-06) , or something higher grade. The 2 options here are worth around 4-6 ounces compared to the walnut. You can also save some weight on the rings. ruger rings are heavy. Millet makes lighter replacements. (save 2 oz)Or, you can hollow out the Ruger rings by drilling a hole down into the lower rings where it won't be visible. Another option is to use lower Ruger rings, if your scope allows. The higher rings weigh more.

I bought the B&C stock on Ebay. The MKII stock (not the skeleton job)I ordered directly from Ruger. The older skeleton MK II stocks should be available used and cheap.

My KM77 MKII .30-06 weighs 8 lb 4 oz with a Bushnell 3200 3-9x on it. (foul weather rifle) My M77R .30-06 with the B&C stock goes 7 lb 13 oz with a Leupold 2-7x.

I reckon you gotta tell yourself something,but lies like that ain't gonna getcha far................

The OP said nothing of balance...he asked how to make the gun lighter. Suggesting it weighs more than he is willing to carry comfortably. Even going so far as to suggest to himself cutting off 1" of barrel length. That is desperate my friend.
If you think carrying around 10-15 extra pounds of body has no effect, either you haven't been on much of a walk or you have been in shape.
I am in shape and to be honest a few ounces isn't going to make jack shxt difference to me.

"Millet makes lighter replacements. (save 2 oz)"

Hands down, Millet rings are the softest trash rings on the market, period.

That was an impressive series,of poor advice............

Not to be cought sounding like you - talking about myself mostly - I quite like where my devices have got me so far. Prospects not to cloudy either.

Rather curious that you can't get out of first gear,on this Thread alone.

I'd call that par,for you.....................

Heck - my bad. I did not know we was racing.

I'm not fun to race either.

This will be hilarious. Let's see a pic of you with a Ruger rifle of any flavor and something dead next to it............

Just checked my files - I tool 43 big game animals with my .30-06 Ruger 77 MKII before I sold it to a friend. That was from 99 till 01, before all the digi business. So I have no pics to provide. Just the screenshot of the relevant page from my log:



Sorry for the bad quality, just seen it now.

I like Rugers, I have two mk II's, a .308 ultralight and a 350 rem mag. Both very accurate rifles.

That said, PWC cut to the chase in advising you to sell it. Let's say you get a featherweight synthetic stock made, and have the action milled out and the barrel fluted. You'll be out about $500 for the stock, and $500 for the machine work. The rifle won't be any better then say a Kimber montanna, and likely still heavier.

The point is, if you really want a light rifle, don't compromise or waste your money. Let's say you dump $1000 in the ruger and you still aren't happy with it. At best you'd get $700-800 after dumping $1k plus the price of the rifle. With a Kimber montanna or remington ti, you can get a used one for a tad under $1k, and if you don't like it, sell it for what you paid for it.

I was thinking 8lbs with rings and (depending) scope would be about as light as you could probably get a Mk II. I put mine in a McMillan and it definately handles and balances better for me, although I wouldn't call it "light". As much as I really like M77 Mk II's, I don't really think there is a cost effective way to make them a lightweight.

I just checked back on this, and nearly passed out when I saw it had gone to 30 replies. I see why now. Poor old PWC is like Ric Flair back in the day. Half the people come to see him, the other half come to boo him. Either way, he knows a great deal and spins a good tale to boot.

I decided that I like the cartridge, but I didn't like the rifle. I just took it and traded it.

I got a kick out of the post that said I should go to the gym. Not knowing me, I guess it is fair enough, but I spend several hours a week in the gym and it isn't that I can't carry an 8.5 pound rifle, it's just that I don't want to. Balance is the factor for me. The extra weight just isn't needed. The swede just doesn't justify a hunting rifle with that much weight on it.

So anyway, I am glad that I didn't miss some glaring way to salvage that rifle. I do appreciate all the posts, and thanks for taking the time.

CT

I only have one Ruger rifle--a MKII .30-06 wood/blue. In the house, I like it a lot. The action, the balance, the profile, about everything. But...that thing is a club. I never tote it afield because it means I am leaving my other .30-06 home--a 700 SS w/a mtn contour bbl in a Hunter's Edge stock. They shoot the same round, but the Ruger requires 2 pounds more to get it done. Hard to justify, so I don't.

Wade,
It puts me in mind of the thread where you take 1,000.00 and set yourself up with a hunting rifle. Many votes for the Ruger and a Leupold 3x9 in .30-06 or .270.

If I only had one rifle to hunt deer, elk, black bear, etc. with, I can see that the the fullsize Ruger is a sound option.

I have a fullsize option in the safe though, and it is a Remington 700 classic chambered for the .280. I held it and the Ruger/Swede side by side, and even though the Remington has a Leupold 3.5x10 on board, it weighs roughly the same. I can sling 160 grainers at 2800 out of that rifle, they do 2500 or so out of the swede. I'm just a hillbilly, but I can see that isn't a smart trade.

I could have kept the Ruger, but it would have seen the field once or twice maybe before I retired it.

.............On the Ruger site, there is no weight listing for your particular MK2. But the new 22" Hawkeyes in 257 Bob, 270 Win and others with 22" barrels list from 7 lbs to 7.5 lbs.

Add on the approx 10.5 oz 2x7 Leupy + scope rings, you`re about 3/4 to a pound heavier. So my best guess is that your rifle weighs from about 7 3/4 lbs up to maybe topping around 8 1/2 - 8 3/4 lbs.

Cutting the barrel down to 21" won`t do anything or very little to decrease the weight. Changing the scope won`t really do much either. So, you either sell it or swap the stock and then keep it. Depending on the stock, a lighter stock as a best guess, will probably reduce the weight by about a pound to 1 1/2 lbs.

If you got a good deal on it, is a good shooter and if you can find a lighter weight stock at a good price then keep it.

Until then, buy some weights and get a little pumped up??????

...................Whooops! I started typing before I read your last post!! I see you traded it!

All my Rugers went down the road after the faux Ti Remmy appeared on the radar screen.

First thing that came to my mind as well.

It's true. One can ladle out the cess pool to find a gem for the lady; doesn't mean they won't retain a fragrance however. A bit of dog stink goes a long ways.

As for a "standard weight" rifle like the Ruger (or Win 70), as has been said, there isn't a lot which can easily be done if you won't accept the birth weight of the receiver, etc. A light rifle starts elsewhere. However, balance can fool you into thinking otherwise, and there are ways to deal with some of that. Of course, if a M77 is what you want, but light, you can always get an Ultra-light. 6.5 isn't standard however I don't think.