Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Ruger M77MkII RSM vs. Mauser - ejection

Read an article yesterday about lessons learned from the Zim PH shooting proficiency exam. The author said the Ruger magnum rifle is not safe to use as a dangerous game rifle because it has a "sprung loaded ejector." He goes on to say that the best rifles are Mausers made by specific manufacturers at specific time periods.

The problem with that "logic" is that the Mauser ejector is also spring loaded. Off the top of my head, the only centerfire rifles I know of with a rigid, standing ejector are the M1903 ("Springfield"), Savage 99, and SMLE, though there are probably others.

Any factory rifle is made to a price point. All of them benefit from hand fitting and polishing of parts to improve function and reliability, even the Mausers. If I screwed a 458 barrel on a military Mauser 98 with no other modifications, would it be absolutely reliable and ready to take elephant hunting? NO! it would not.

Any machine benefits from fine-tuning and careful fitting of parts to improve function. Comparing any factory rifle to a finely tuned rifle costing 10 times as much or more is BS.

About the only difference I can see between a Ruger and a Mauser is that the Mauser ejector is directly across the bolt face from the extractor and travels through a slot cut in the left locking lug, whereas the Ruger's ejector is just below the left locking lug. Does this make a big difference in ejection reliability?

Imo, Ruger would more than likely disagree with this particular author......Not safe??

Did this author site any "actual" reports where there were problems with the Ruger spring loaded ejectors?

Did he mention any contact with Ruger themselves to see if there were any problems reported?

It`s ok to have an opinion about a Ruger Mag rifle`s spring loaded ejector as not being safe. It is quite another matter to research this issue and find "actual" accountings or reports "confirming" this author`s opinion.

When I go to Africa in the future, I would certainly heed the advice offered by a PH. However when it comes to knowing the mechanical workings and efficiency of my own rifles; two Rugers and a Wby using my own reloads, that might be an area imo, where the PH might be overstepping his bounds a little.

Was he speaking of the Mark II specifically or the older tang safety with plunger ejector?

I think the RSM refers to the Magnum rifle made on the Tangs Safety action. It does have a plunger ejector and of course a true CRF affectiondo would dis it as unworthy of dangerous game. I owned one of these in 416 Rigby and it was a fine rifle, a bit heavy but very nice with excellent build quality.

Ruger also made magnum rifles in the MKII line, I think they were called the MKII Deluxe Magnum Rifle and were pretty much classical CRF rifles. I never held one so I can't comment on its fit and finish, but I would guess that with a check-up and a massage from a good CRF smith, these would make a fine dangerous game rifle.

This is incorrect. Ruger did not make the RSM "magnum" rifle in the tang safety, only the Mark II. There were 458 mag caliber rifles made in the tang safety but with the standard M77 action, not the RSM magnum action. He talks about those too.

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.africahunting.com/content/2-big-game-hunting-rifles-500/

I must have been confused, I did have a 416 back around 92-93 ( didn't shoot it much as I was in college and it was like $18 a shot) . I don't know why I felt it was a TS. I looked up the parts manual and it was only listed as a MKII.

looks like according to the article just go out and buy a Browing Safari FN action and you should be good to go with a slight asmount of tweaking.

There's no question that FN made some excellent Mauser 98 actions, but there is no "one size fits all." The very best performance always comes from a finely tuned machine. Its that "slight amount of tweaking" (and sometimes more than a slight amount) that makes all the difference. You can bet your arse that if I ever do go and deliberately stand in front of a charging 3 ton elephant with hopes of staying alive, the rifle in my hands will definitely be fully qualified, whatever that takes to make it so will have been done. Its no wonder that the double rifles are so highly regarded in that situation. They are essentially two separate single-shot rifles attach together, and no rifle is more reliable than a good single-shot.

After reading the article and I had the problem with my Ruger MKII ejector I can agree with his statements about the Ruger ejector. Two drops of oil fixed my problem but like the writer eluded to, keeping the ejector oiled will cause problems with dust.

Doesn't the original Mauser 98 have a fixed ejector that doesn't pivot like the M70 & M77 MKII?

Maybe the "original Mauser" does, whatever that is, but I have two commercial Mausers, an FN and a Mark X, and both have spring loaded ejectors. Both eject fine too, as do all my Ruger MkIIs. I will admit, however, that I had one Ruger that did not eject properly when I got it. The ejector did not line up with the slot in the bolt and cases would just stay on the bolt. I adjusted the ejector a bit and it worked fine from then on.

The article in question was written by Professional Hunter Don Heath who also runs the Zimbabwe PH qualification exams, the toughest in all of Africa. I heeded his advice and had my ejector milled down and it now works as good as any M-98