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

This:
is the only hideous bolt handle in this conversation. I don't care if the rifle consistently shoots a sub-MOA hole.........well, that's not true as it can only do it a single time. Of the two, the M77 certainly has a much better hold on "reliable" than does the pictured item. A M77 223 I have was on the sled outside the house last March when I learned that my dad was dying. It was neglected and forgotten during the time I was away before and after he passed away. When I returned the weather had warmed, things were wet. The rifle was secured in a canvas case and wrapped in a standard blue tarp. Just for grins, I left it there all summer just to see how it- and the Leupold M-8 4X (old long tube) would hold up. I finally decided to unwrap and open things in September. The scope ring screws were rather red. Other than that, the stainless rifle was in perfect condition. So too, the scope. I can respect that.

" I can respect that." So can I.

He makes a very good point.....Hard to deny that reasoning. Good post Klik....

My Dad has the same rifle in a 223 and wouldn't swap it for anything. He must have had that thing for near on 20 years and not once has it missed a beat. At 65 he still shoots like the wind...and does it with his butt ugly ruger ;-)

Now a rifle I couldn't get to shoot was a Winchester big bore 375win...and that has never stopped me buying a winchester. Some rifles just plain simply suck...just like some family members. Come out of the same mold but couldn't be further apart :-)

Here's a thought. Don't like cast receivers? Just keep in mind that all steel is molten and cast at one time or another.

Talking common sense to a uniformed poster doesn't work

Sounds like the little girl that tells mommy no need to kill animals just go to the store & buy our meat instead!

The two commonly mentioned flaws/problems that keep Rugers from being or becoming more popular are:

1) Bad barrels from 1980's that Ruger installed

2) Cast receivers, which make them heavier than average?

My M-77 in .250 with 1.5x5 is 1/2lb lighter than my .223 T-3 Lite with 4x12. My arms haven't stretched from carrying either one!
Can't speak for 80s period guns but my 70s guns are every bit as accurate as any other gun from that era.

Seems like Mule Deer addressed the question of strength of Rugers' receivers a few years ago in a magazine article. I've forgotten the specifics and wish he'd chime in here and remind me.

Here is the only Ruger 77 that I have. I bought it because of the spectacular wood it's stock has. It's the Express model.

I would have more 77's however I got my pre-64 M70's before M77's were made.

Same with Ruger No.1's as I got High Walls first.

They are still lighter than a Mauser or Winchester. Kimber is about the only CRF action that comes to mind that lighter than a Ruger.

"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."

Torque. I too had a #1A in 7x57 that would not shoot worth Schit. I sensed that it might be a throating problem and had my gunsmith do a chamber cast which proved the throat was way out of spec. A 2.5" throat just don't cut it. My gunsmith gave me a written report on the condition of the throat and he stated it was too far out of spec to give any kind of decent accuracy. I sent Ruger a letter with a copy of my gunsmith's report along with a phone number and it was less than a week they called me and said to send it in. My gunsmith "marked" the barrel so we'd know if theactually changed it. After a long and anxious 7 months I go the gun back and it did have a new barrel. Accuracy is still not perfect but 1.25" is a hell of a lot better than the 5 to 6" I was getting. I was collecting #1's for a while and some have been absolute tack drivers and others just barely acceptable. The ones that have been the best shooters ae #1v in .223 Rem. although that one needs wheels, and several "B" models with relative small bores, that is .22 Hornet, .243 (A lightweight), 6MM Rem., .257 Robt. 25-06, one of two I have, the other needs tweaking, two in .300 Win. Mag., one a "B" and the other an "S". Except for one of the 25-06s, (the pretty one) all are sub-MOA. The rest of the bunch run right around 1.5" on the average.
Ruger used to say 2" at 50 yards. It's sad to see they now consider 3" at 50 yards acceptable. For the money they want for one of those rifles today, with that standard they can stick them where the sun don't shine.
I'm getting on in years now and there are probably not all that many hunts left in my future so I will be disposing of all but a few favored rifles.
Paul B.

Sorry customer service? You stated Ruger responded to your gunsmiths letter within a week of sending it, and eventually returned your rifle with a new barrel. A No.1 that will shoot 1.25" I'd be happy with, since no rifle is perfect. Is it just me, or am I missing something?

I wonder how many people even know what the investment casting process is, how it works, what the mechanical properties of the product are as compared to a billet or forged part, and how many of those proclaiming the "junk cast" bit, unaware of their own pathetic ignorance of materials science engineering, have ridden in an aircraft powered by a jet engine, played golf with a good club, ridden in a turbo diesel truck, etc...

Investment casting is a totally different process than the cast frame on your wife's Kitchen Aid...

It was a sad day when Ruger abandoned the tang safety. There was one rifle maker who understood where a safety ought to be, and the market convinced them they were doing it wrong. The move to CRF was nice, but not all that necessary. I've never had a feeding or extracting issue with a push feeder Ruger, but I have encountered feeding issues with the CRF models. But once worked out, they're good to go.

Kevin,

The tang safety was the one of Ruger's early strong suits, as was an adjustable trigger. However, on commenting on the tang safety, that area seemed to be a weak point on the action.
I had a respectable gunsmith (who gave me a lecture on the benefits of investment casting) comment that Ruger more than likely droped the tang safety because the design really took a lot of metal from the rear of the action. Browning using the tang safety is the only thing that ever appealed to me about their rifles.

The Ruger sorry customer service was me quoting Torque. I never said anything about the quality of Ruger's service on my rifle other that I was beginning to think they'd never send it back. That was my only complaint. I uess you missed the quotation marks.
Paul B.

I have three M77's, the first I inherited from my Grandmother's brother when he passed, it's a "Liberty" 338WM, it shot 1 1/2" groups, not bad?, I floated the barrel and now it's a sub MOA gun, it'll leave my possession when I die!, the second is a 300WM, '84 vintage, haven't shot it yet?, maybe it's on of them "DUD" rifles??, the third, I picked it up about a month ago, is a '72 vintage 7x57 that was NEW in box, still had the hang tags on it!, I've only sent 12 rounds down the barrel to get it on paper, it's producing about 2 1/8" groups with factory Winchester 145 pills, I think the first thing I'll do is actually see if the action screws are tight!??, the stock may have shrunk a little in the last 40 years!?
And I also like the fact the safety's are on the tang just like my Savages, and I've also seen the detached bolt handle Remington first hand, one of the guys at work popped his off gently chambering a round on the bench right before hunting season two years ago, the gun smith made it sound like it happens all the time!??

Guess I'm one of the few that likes the MkII safety better than the tang safety. I agree that there is nothing more natural than the tang safety, a la a double shotgun. The point I diverge is that I really like the safety to block the striker (such as the Winchester Model 70 or most Mausers).

I would be slightly happier if the safety lever were a bit larger, but I think the design is superb, and prefer it on a using rifle. I can, however, do without the three-position aspect, much preferring the simplicity of a two position job.

I really do prefer the CRF to the older style bolt face as well. Many years ago, I had a fail to extract when the extractor failed to jump the rim on a .270 cartridge; wouldn't have happened on the newer one. I'm also a big fan of the newer ejector, and elimination of the plunger, though I've not had one fail me nor have I heard of one failing.

In the accuracy department, I've found Rugers, especially the more recent ones, to be excellent, both Model 77s and #1s. I have a couple fairly recent #1S rifles that are scary accurate, and have been so right out of the box.

Ruger triggers are _somewhat_ fixable ... to average hunting sporter standards. I've never seen one tuned up to what I think is appropriate for a long range rifle. The diagonal bedding block is also something of an issue. Changes in screw tension don't just change how hard the barreled action is sucked down into the stock, but also change lengthwise pressure. Ruger doesn't have real strong aftermarket support, so what you buy better be what you really want.

My first 3 factory centerfire bolt actions were pre 64 model 70s. They are "ok", light years beyond their competition at the time they were introduced, but nothing special compared to today's rifles. Mine were 1.5 - 2 moa rifles and groups shifted a lot with changes in humidity. My first new-in-box bolt action centerfires were Rugers. The first 6? 10? ... shot well, some very well indeed, but then I got into a run of bad rifles, some not fit to use as tomato stakes, never mind to hunt with. I switched to Remington and went through a run of really good Remingtons, again, maybe 6-10 in a row, then that went to [bleep] and I got a bunch of bad ones one right after another.

I generally don't buy anything today without considering its potential for rebarrel, restock, and re-trigger if the factory delivered a lemon. Guess I've just had too many lemons. That leans me toward Remington simply because there is so much more aftermarket stuff for Remington and the gunsmiths I work with prefer to work on them.

Tom