Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters How come Ruger 77`s get no respect????

I've had 3 77s
1st on was an early V-barrel in .225, shot honest 1/2-3/4" 5 shot groups all day, should never have let it go but it had a really high round count & well you know...grass is always greener!
2nd was an early tang 7x57, beautiful, slick little gun that couldn't hit an elephants unless you had great long bullets I had the barrel set back one thread & a 280 reamer run into it. Presto instant good shooter, probably averaging an 1" with many 3 shot group into less than 1/2". Then had a cheapy plastic stock installed & it is my fav most reliable big game rifle.
3rd is a early tang .250s. Another good shooter running just slightly over an 1" averages. Shot a bear with it last yr to give the 280 a rest.
All had very good adjustable triggers, fairly light, rock solid scope mount system & I must have been lucky, all good shooters.
Would I buy another...I don't know, my hunting style nowdays almost demands a detach mag & I can't deny the amazing accuracy of any Tikka I've owned or shot is something not to be overlooked.

Yep. I have three Hawkeyes and one of the transition MK II V/Ts with the blued action and SS barrel. I'm likely to pick up a 9.3x62 African, a Roberts, and if I can find one, one of the .375 Alaskans with the laminate stock and 23" barrel.

But I like M70s better, and if Remington ever gets their QC act together, I'll buy more of them, too. And there's plenty of old 700s out there.

Just for the record. I've owned a lot of 77's, not sure how many, but number 25 was about six years ago. I bought my first one more than 40 years ago. I still have a 22LR, 22-250, 257R, 30/06, 35W, 416T, and a 77/50. All are RS models. The 22LR and 77/50 are not tang safety models. The rest are. All the tang safety's are MOA or better. The 22LR can do one hole groups at fifty yards when I'm having a good day. My gunsmith refers to them as tomato stakes, and grumbles about them, but I know what he hunts with, it's a Number 1. My Taylor is a custom built, my 22 has had a bunch of tweaking.
Some things I've noticed. Most of my Ruger rifles and handguns got more accurate and smoother working with use. There were variations in the stock design over the years, sometimes the stocks were clunky, sometimes svelt. Rugers tend to be heavy. Rugers tend to be overengineered. They tend to be reliable, I've never had one fail to operate (I've never had a Winchester, Remington or Savage fail either. That says something for the gun industry. I can't say the same for cars, washing machines, stoves or lawnmowers.) All the 77's have grouped less than 1.75 inch with factory ammo. They are American made. The bluing on the old tang safety models, even though it's a bit shiny, has held up really well. Used guns are never worth what you think they should be when you're selling and are way overpriced when you're buying.
Bfly

Here is my experience. It is not with the 77, but the No. 1, and the entire reason I will never give Ruger another cent of my money.

My father had wanted a Ruger No. 1 for many years. He thinks they are one of the most beautiful looking guns ever produced. He worked his butt off to support 3 kids and my mother who stayed home to raise us. After I graduated from college, I bought my father a walnut/blued No. 1 in 7x57, which is a caliber he had long wanted to try, as a gift for being so good to myself and my family.

I bought him a Leupold VX IIc 3-9 x 40 to top it off.

We immediately commenced to working up loads for the rifle. We could not find a bullet/powder combination that would group under 4" at 100 yds. We tried 3 different brands of commercial ammo with the same result. We investigated the problem and did every conceivable modification to the forearm and contact points, etc. Basically, if it was a known issue with the rifle, we tried it and were only successful at bringing the groups down to 3" @ 100 yds. We tried 3 different scopes.

So, after giving up on our own, we gave Ruger a call and they put us in touch with an engineer. The engineer informed us that Ruger only guaranteed 3" groups at 50 yds, but that we were more than welcome to send the gun into them, at our expense and they would look at it. But, it seemed likely to the engineer that the groups we were getting were within their specs and that we would have to pay for return shipping and the chamber testing on top of that. F that.

We tried calling back on another day and speaking to a different engineer, hoping that the first was mistaken. We were wrong. The second engineer informed us of the same thing.

If a company cannot guarantee that their flagship, most expensive rifle, cannot shoot better than 3" at 50yds., why in the hell should I ever buy another rifle from them? The answer is obvious, I won't. That accuracy spec I wouldn't expect from a mainstream rifle. It's garbage, and so is everything Ruger makes.

Once I think about it, I have only seen one Ruger M77 as
a custom build. I like the older tang safety models myself.

How many deer hasyour father killed with his No.1?

I bought a 25.06 Mark 1 tanger used quite some time ago. It ended up being a 1.25 inch gun, never better. Killed a couple coyotes and a deer with it, but shot it out trying to get under an inch. I am going to set that one back to Better Bob and try again.
Friend won a .204 MkII 77 right after they came out. That thing is on its second barrel from the factory, and I'm getting the reamers so it can be set back and re-cut a SECOND time.
In both cases here, the trigger and action bedding have turned out fine, in fact the Mk2 has an amazingly good trigger after some judicious voodoo. But I would rather just go scrounge a beater Savage or Mauser action rather than deal with Rugerisms in my search for rifle nirvana.

Back in the late '80s', early '90s I did buy 3 Ruger mdl 77 mkIIs'. All 3 were SS, all weather firearms. The .308 and the .300 Win. Mag., with a little tweekin' on the guns, and loads, both turned out to be excelent tack drivers. However, the .223 was a total disaster! Tweek as I may, I could never hit a bull in the hinney at 50 paces with that sucker. I called the Ruger Support team more times then ya can imagine, all to no availe. They would not give me permission to return the rifle!
I truly love my 2 remaining mdl77s', but if many folks had the same problem that I did, with my .223, I can see why they may be turned off to the Ruger!
Twink

Hate the MK II safety. Won't have another 77 MK II as a keeper until that is gone. Never could understand why they didn't keep the tang safety when they went to CRF. If a third position was desired do it to the tang design. IIRC Savage managed to engineer one.

Twenty or so years ago, a pretty good B-I-L was in need of a mule deer rig. Frugal is not a strong enough word to describe him. I found a tang safety Ruger .270, took some surplus wood from the stock, helped the trigger, quieted the safety, and installed a Mr. Ruiz reconditioned Weaver scope. I then worked up to some pretty warm 140 grain hand loads that shot nice and tight. Just about every time he pulls the trigger, something dies. Perhaps not classy, but it works. jack

I've owned a pile of Rugers but I'll never buy another Ruger centerfire longgun. None of mine have been accurate enough to keep.

I once owned a Ruger M77RS carbine in .358 Winchester, and
will someday own another just like it.

0. It was sold with the circumstances explained after the second call to Ruger. The current owner never got it to shoot either.

Ruger's accuracy spec and sorry customer service is why I will never buy another. If they would have taken care of the problem like any other gun company would have. (I've dealt with both Remington and Savage on problems, and they bent over backwards to help) I would have nothing to say about them.

In today's environment and technology, a rifle that won't shoot under 3" at 100yds, and a factory spec of 3" at 50 is absolutely ridiculous.

Torque,
Maybe it's different in the States, but I'm aware of a Ruger No1 that was replaced when it failed to shoot any factory ammunition accurately.
Cheers...
Con

I can only talk about the experience I had Con, which is similar to what another poster commented on earlier also. If someone was helped by Ruger, then good for them. I was not.

New Remington semi-auto??

My most accurate rifle to date is a tang 22-250 that I had Les Bauska give a once over. Not sure what he did, but it is surgical. I bought a Mk .243 for the kids and they have killed a pile of deer and antelope with it over the years. The triggers will clean up nicely with a little work/ change of springs.

I heard that never happens. How'd you get a pic of mine in a synthetic stock. (Mine's always been in a laminate.)

77s have never caused me any trouble however.



They seem to have just as good minute of daylight hunting accuracy as any of them.

Because they have to EARN it!

Yeah, I'm a fan, especially of the Mark II and later actions. I like the CRF (though my tang safety models with the dreaded plunger ejectors have not failed me either), really like the safety that physically blocks the striker, like the Mark II trigger (easy to stone down, simple, no crud can accumulate a la Model 70 old trigger). Mine shoot great, especially the later ones, though my '73 model Swift is superb. And the receiver/scope ring design is elegant simplcity at its finest - positively the best there is (oh, and the rings I have put on/off, have always returned to zero - great for pre-zeroing a spare scope in separate rings for an important hunt).

Wish they continued the Express models; they were the cream of the crop.

This fear of cast receivers is pure swamp gas...after 40 years, where are the failures?