Ruger changed their safetys from the original model 77’s with a Tang safety to the later years with a three position rear bolt safety. The actions look basically the same (not sure ). So were there any issues with the tang safetys that Ruger switched? Or are both types GTG?
I've found both to be GTG - the switch from tang safety to 3 position also coincided with a change to being really CRF. It went from a plunger ejector to a slot and blade style that operated more like a pre-64 M70 - picks up the cartridge, controls it into the breech etc.
Up to you to determine if that's something important or not.
I have a couple of Hawkeyes, in .308 and 6.5 CM, and they've both been good shooters. I had to bed the .308's synthetic stock before it shot well though.
After the original tang safety Model 77, Ruger came out with the Mark II which had the three position safety and the long, non-rotating extractor but was still push feed. There was a slight lip which went all the way around the bolt face so the round had to be chambered and then the extractor snapped over it.
After a while they ground off the bottom of that lip and made it a true CRF, then later came out with the Hawkeye series which had a different stock design and different trigger.
The main thing to look out for with the original Model 77's is that they were made during Ruger's cheap barrel period, you could get a good one or it could be total crap.* Sometime around the 90's Ruger began producing their own barrels which were and still are good to very good.
All this IIRC.
* Friend of mine in the mid-70's had a standard Sporter model .220 Swift that was decently accurate by the standards of the day, at least it would put five shots into an inch or just under. Later on in the early-mid 80's I had a heavy barrel tang safety "Varmint" model 25-06 that wouldn't group anything into less than 2" and most loads into around 3". Very frustrating rifle that went down the road to a guy who just wanted to shoot deer in his back yard with it, a task for which it was well suited.
"The main thing to look out for with the original Model 77's is that they were made during Ruger's cheap barrel period, you could get a good one or it could be total crap.* Sometime around the 90's Ruger began producing their own barrels which were good to very good.
All this IIRC."
IIRC - Jim you are partially correct in that "for a time SOME 77 blls" were poorly made. The reason I say that is ALL my 77s were PRE 1990 and very good.
UNLESS I'm mistaken that was corrected BEFORE the Model Name Change.
It's MY opinion that NOT all 77 blls were made during the P P period.
All the 77s I had were accurate, 243, 2 - 270s, 300 WM (ouch).
They very well could have been, I'm definitely no expert on the exact dates Ruger changed over but sort of remember things in a general way.
And definitely not all Ruger barrels made during that time were dogs, noting my friend's .220 Swift. A No. 1B 25-06 purchased in 1975 would consistently put 3 shots into about 3/4". It would even put them into a generally consistent pattern, walking them up diagonally from lower left to upper right. The 4th and 5th shots would continue that line while straying out farther and farther, but the first three from a cold barrel were always close together.
After the original tang safety Model 77, Ruger came out with the Mark II which had the three position safety and the long, non-rotating extractor but was still push feed. There was a slight lip which went all the way around the bolt face so the round had to be chambered and then the extractor snapped over it.
After a while they ground off the bottom of that lip and made it a true CRF, then later came out with the Hawkeye series which had a different stock design and different trigger.
The main thing to look out for with the original Model 77's is that they were made during Ruger's cheap barrel period, you could get a good one or it could be total crap.* Sometime around the 90's Ruger began producing their own barrels which were and still are good to very good.
All this IIRC.
* Friend of mine in the mid-70's had a standard Sporter model .220 Swift that was decently accurate by the standards of the day, at least it would put five shots into an inch or just under. Later on in the early-mid 80's I had a heavy barrel tang safety "Varmint" model 25-06 that wouldn't group anything into less than 2" and most loads into around 3". Very frustrating rifle that went down the road to a guy who just wanted to shoot deer in his back yard with it, a task for which it was well suited.
I've had 3 (still have 2- never should have sold the 77V in 25-06) tangers, none of the rest..
Had the same experience with the V, except when I started using hand-loaded fire-formed, neck-sized only brass, it went to MOA or better from about 5" MO factory ammo (oversized chamber?). Killed over 20 caribou with it and handholds out to 500+ yards. Average probably 300 or so.
I've had no accuracy issues with the 30-06 (17 inch bbl after I whacked the bulge off the end, bought used....) 1/4" MOA most anything factory- never reloaded for it), have killed to 375 yards or so with it, nor with the .338WM (also bought used). 338 is MOA or less with fire-formed, shoulder -sized brass. Factory belt-chamber- sized goes 1/4 to 1/2 inch larger group sizes. I can live with 1 1/2 MOA in a 338WM. If I must.... I've killed 2 caribou (about 15 seconds apart) , at 250 yards or so with it, one moose at 140, and at least half a dozen more under 100 yards.. Good enough is good enough, sometimes.
The V was factory standard, un-tweaked (my first 77). The other two are glass bedded, free-floated, factory triggers tweaked down to 3-3 1/2 trigger pull weight. I prefer 2 1/2, but they will do.
Mechanically, and on the bench, never a problem, as long as clearances are met. Just had to scrape a couple thousands off my full- receiver bedding on the '06 for safety wire clearance, which was rubbing and a bit stiff. Smooth now! Not sure how that suddenly came to be/ after decades of no-problem.
On my 77s, the bolt is locked down, on safe. As on all tangers, I think. Safety must be moved off to unload a chambered round - I can live with that, but 3 position safeties have their points! I surely do like my Rem 725, and Win 70 for that reason.
Oh yeah - If you are going hunting with the thing, it's best not to leave the bolt behind on the cleaning bench.
Every Ruger 77 centerfire rifle I've ever owned, would shoot better than 1/2 inch groups with budget scopes in factory rings.
Since the inception of the mighty 77, over hundred thousand Alaskan hunters can't be wrong..........
Get the latest Bill Ruger book.......
Geeze, I sure wish this wasn't a one piece bolt on my 77, so I could unscrew the bolt handle for titanium one. The boat is too heavy pulling over beaver dams.
I like the 77s, my first one was in .280 (1977) and I started handloading then too. Its trigger left much to be desired! I tried one of the first "Ultralights" (308/20" bbl) around '83, but I couldn't hold it still with its 5# trigger pull, off it went. Years later tried another tanger/338 win mag...3" was its best, off it went. I had a MKII in 338WM that shot one type of factory ammo exceptionally...had issues with handloads. I had a Hawkeye 77 257 roberts...2" shooter, a Hawkeye All Weather in 338 Federal was great...just not enough "oomph" for me. I'm now waiting on my Hawkeye 338 RCM 22" model from the smith. I hope its a shooter. To me Rugers are built like a tank, may or may not shoot, and kinda heavy in wood stock models, but worth the "trying it out" time. Nowadays you can get aftermarket triggers or work on existing, ( I'm not a trigger tinkerer...to OCD! ha)
Every Ruger 77 centerfire rifle I've ever owned, would shoot better than 1/2 inch groups with budget scopes in factory rings.
Would you mind picking some lottery numbers for me?
I did have an early 375 Ruger Alaskan that was a steaming pile of sht. It had to go back to Ruger.....
My 338 RCM carbine had a large piece of casting slag on the feed ramp. Wiped out a chainsaw file on that heat treated steel, taking down that big piece of slag.
I bought a Ruger tanger in the early '80's in 7mm Rem Mag. That thing shot a shotgun pattern. I sent it back to Ruger twice. The first time, they did something that brought the groups down to a little over 2". I was hoping for something better than that, so I sent it back, again. The second time they told me the gun was within specs and they would do nothing more on it. Based on that overall experience, I didn't buy another Ruger product for 40 years.
My wife is a lefty, and recently wanted her own rifle, i.e, meaning a left hand action. There are not a lot of lefty options in the market, but I found a good deal on a near new Ruger Hawkeye lefty in .223Rem at Cabelas. I grudgingly bought. It shoots factory ammo fine, nothing to get excited about, but can't complain for a factory rifle. Initial handloading is showing some good potential.
The first year of so the 77 MKIIs were push feed. Ruger got so much response stating they should have made them CRF they did. During the 80's accuracy was a crap shoot. You either got a good barrel or didn't. IIRC Douglas made barrels in the beginning and then Ruger contracted the barrels to another company. The fix was Ruger started making their barrels for better QC.
The All Weather models always felt better in my hands than the old standard 77 ( i.e the thick forearms, and the flat under the magazine bugs me, but its OK.) I traded an old Universal 30 carbine to a guy for a standard M77 tanger in 243 for my dad. It had a Weaver 3x9 WideView, but the guy had dropped the rifle, bending the scope tube down. It cost me $40 (late 70s) to have them repair it. Its trigger was "OK" and it shot very well, but it was heavy! ha That 308 Ultralight I tried was one kicking little devil too! ha It was one sweetheart of a woods rifle though. I just couldn't shoot it well enough to hit a 2 liter pop bottle at 200yds with it 1x4 Leupold. My first 77 in .280 was not terribly heavy, and I shot my first "long range for me" buck down a pipeline ROW with a handloaded Hornady 139sp. 276 long steps! Up til then, 90yds was my farthest. ( SE Texas) I traded that rifle for a brandnew 6" Colt Python .357 Magnum. That was the "loudest" 357 I have ever shot! Checkered grips hurt and the bluing was "too pretty" to put in a holster, ha. I traded it for my first Remington 700 Classic ('82) in .257 Roberts. Now, the Mod 77 and the Classic were very similar in shape , but the Classic became my favorite. BTW, in a local gun shop here, I saw an old Tanger 77 7x57 with a Leupold 2.5x8 for $750 if anyone is interested. Its at Daves Shooting Sports, Taylorsville, Utah. Older model...iffy on barrel make!
I have owned and shot about 20 Ruger 77s from tang safety to Hawkeye in 243, 250-3000, 257 Bob, 6.5 creed, 7mm-08, 7x57, 270, 280 and 30-06. I have had about 50% success rate in getting them to shoot moa or better. I like the look and feel of them though so it is worth a roll of the dice for me.
"That 308 Ultralight I tried was one kicking little devil too! ha It was one sweetheart of a woods rifle though. I just couldn't shoot it well enough to hit a 2 liter pop bottle at 200yds with it 1x4 Leupold."
Well, when I had my 308 Ultra Light I was shooting my 77 tanger 300 WM !! & my Friends 700 8mm RM !! SO I guess it was 'relative' at the time. NOT to criticize you.... I actually never noticed the recoil from the 308. Incidentally I now OWN that 8 RM. I actually shot it more than he did.
Mule Deer: " I've owned a pile of 77's of all eras. While one barrel truly sucked (a 7x57 with a bore that had numerous loose spots, with the tight spots measuring .287), all the others shot anywhere from acceptably to very well. My acceptable rating is three shots in an inch for big game rifles, and five shots in an inch for varmint rifles, and very well is half that. Most of them required some work on the bedding and trigger, but then a lot of factory rifles do." "My experience has been that bad barrels on tang-safety Rugers were extremely rare, and were scattered randomly throughout the years."
Boxer - Big Stick: "I've Ruger familiarity and accept them for what they are. Light or bullet proof they are not, though curiously enough they are oft maligned by the masses for "accuracy" woe which I've yet to see, though of course I shoot a bit, which tend to tip numerous scales."
I've owned 2 mark 2's. One 25-06 and one 7mag and one 77 22 hornet. None of the three would shoot to my liking sold all three. Won't ever go there again Anything but a ruger. There may be some great ones out there but after three duds that's enough for me
I seem to recall Jim Carmichael said one of the best classic stock makers in America designed the 77 tanger stock. Anybody know who it was? I'm thinking Joe Balickie but I could be way off.
I seem to recall Jim Carmichael said one of the best classic stock makers in America designed the 77 tanger stock. Anybody know who it was? I'm thinking Joe Balickie but I could be way off.
I seem to recall Jim Carmichael said one of the best classic stock makers in America designed the 77 tanger stock. Anybody know who it was? I'm thinking Joe Balickie but I could be way off.
I seem to recall Jim Carmichael said one of the best classic stock makers in America designed the 77 tanger stock. Anybody know who it was? I'm thinking Joe Balickie but I could be way off.
Leonard Brownell I believe....
Yes that's the guy! He did the Number 1 as well
Brownell not only designed the stocks after about 1966 but he also designed the furniture- grip caps pads etc and the sight bases ribs and scope mounts. The horizontal Ruger rings WERE NOT his first choice of design. The first Ruger rings were vertically split and looked a lot like the single top screw Talley vertical split rings.
The original Ruger no 1 and M77 stocks made up until the early 1970s had lines and detailing like custom stocks- gracefully rounded contours ,deep comb fluting and cut lines behind the grips. Unfortunately, during those years of rampant inflation and Bill Rugers desire to keep costs down, those subtle details were taken out by the production engineers to make the guns easier to build.
The Hawkeye stocks are much slimmer than the old standards, more like the ULs. I like the one I put on my AW very much, but the comb is still a bit too low to be ideal.
Paid $150 for it from the Classifieds; sold the synthetic for $75. Major upgrade, appearance-wise; shoots the same as before without any work. Might float it someday just because.
Ruger finally slimmed the 77 forearm on the tang model in the later years. It was also about the time they lightened up the barrel contours in some calibers. I had a 7 mag with the fat barrel & forearm & when the slimmer, lighter ones came out I immediately traded. It felt so much better.
Kept my eyes peeled for a barrel contour change in the 25-06, but that never happened.
Have had about a dozen 77's, mostly tangers, about a third MkII's. The most accurate of all of them was a tang in 270. The least, a 243 MKII.
I've owned 4 M77 rifles. The 2 .270's were shooters, but a little on the porky side. A B&C stock knocks off 6 oz or so of weight. The .30-06 shot well, but went away when I decided I didn't need so many 06's. I had a M77V in .243 that did not shoot varmint bullets well. It wasn't too bad with 100 gr bullets, but that's not what varmint rifles were for.
I like the tang safeties a bit better. Just saw a nice 7mm rem mag in nice shape in the local shop with tang safety and red pad. I think those were the best M77's
I had three tangers, a .243, a .270, and later, a .30/06. All of them shot well enough to kill deer, the first two had locking bolts when the safety was "on", but the .30/06's bolt did NOT lock the bolt handle down. Somewhere in between making the .270 and .30/06 (about eight years), they changed them up a bit. The '06 also had a much trimmer stock on it, although I'd switched to an aftermarket stock on the .270 by then.
I was really pleased with all three rifles, I wish I could get a new tanger, I really thought highly of them.
I have only owned three Ruger 77's but have shot a few dozen. I have glass bedded, re-barreled, re-stocked, and repaired, a few hundred. I have seen very few which could not be made to shoot very well. The early tang safety models, with the flat bolt handles, had nicely shaped stocks. With the advent of the heavy barreled varmint models, they made the fore arm fatter to accommodate the fatter barrel. They decided to make all the stocks the same after that and kind of spoiled the design. The tang safety trigger was fully adjustable and could be set up fairly well. The MKII trigger was non-adjustable but was simpler and more foolproof. Neither is a great trigger. The trigger on the newer varminters is a very good trigger. GD
Now that I know the terminology, I can say that my M77 .338 Win Mag is a Tanger . Bought it from my older brother and it has been to RSA and made mostly one shot kills including a big Eland Bull. It was Magna Ported, glass bedded and had the trigger pull adjusted down to 4 pounds. After taking a departing Bull Elk with a Texas Heart Shot, I gave it to my son to keep my son from blowing big bucks on another rifle and he shoots it now. Fortunately, it was not my only big game rifle.
Shot my first deer with a m77 tanger in .300wm. The straight stock still fits me like a glove. The rifle has a heavy barrel. It hurt carrying it up sheep and goat mountains when I was younger.. Dad bought it for me about 1980. It always shot decent but seems to l UK e heavy grand slams. I'd like to find a modern bullet that it shoots as well. .
Was at Brownells today. The prices were astonishing, however, they had new 77s, SS compacts in 223, 243, (awesome kid gun, or adult gun) walnut and blue in 7rm, 7-08, 270, Hawkeye Pred in 223 and another. All looked excellently put together.
RARs should be $350 max. Junk that is accurate. Like dating a chunky redhead that's a good lay, hard to love. LOL
Was at Brownells today. The prices were astonishing, however, they had new 77s, SS compacts in 223, 243, (awesome kid gun, or adult gun) walnut and blue in 7rm, 7-08, 270, Hawkeye Pred in 223 and another. All looked excellently put together.
RARs should be $350 max. Junk that is accurate. Like dating a chunky redhead that's a good lay, hard to love. LOL
I have two tangers right now, a red pad 270 I got off the classifieds here and a 257 Roberts I picked up at a gunshow this one a UL model. Getting the 257 to shoot was a project but all is well with it now. The 270 shot great right from the start. I do like the tang safety and the actions feed/function perfectly.
the 77 is my favorite bolt action platform. i have them in 77/22, both original and newer models, tang safety 358 carbine (favorite), RSI in 308 and 2 frontier rifles in 338 fed and 7/08. all had so/so triggers but were able to be fixed by my gunsmith. the tanger is especially nice. my 77/22 squirrel gun has a dayton traister trigger and a bushnell 4200. it is a tack driver with cci mini-mags. my sons both have 77/22's that are stock and shoot pretty good but could use some trigger work. i always recommend them to folks looking for a bolt gun.
I like the M77/Hawkeye, too. I only have two right now. A M77 MkII Express .270 and a Hawkeye African 6.5x55 Swedish. I've owned several in the past, most recently a Gunsite Scout in ,308, and a M77 MkII stainless .30-06 in a boat paddle stock. The only issue I ever had was that the trigger on the Gunsite was way too light. Under 2 lbs. It was virtually a hair trigger. Never felt comfortable with that, but never did anything about it. Ended up selling it. I gave the M77 MkII stainless to my son in California.
The only other issue (a non-issue really) is that none of the CRF features worked as well as they do on my M70s. On my M70s, once the cartridge clears the magazine, it literally pops up behind the extractor. Not so on any M77 I've ever had. Once the catridge on those clears the magazine, they get forced up behind the extractors as they get pushed into the chamber. Otherwise, they don't pop up behind the extractor.
I have three 77RLs, in 308 Win, 257 Rob and a 260 Rem, that was recently rebarreled by McGowen from 243 Win. Also have a 77RSI in 250 Sav and a 77V in 220 Swift. All are tangers, and all shoot 3 inside an inch, if I let them cool between shots. All, that is,except the 257, which goes just over an inch. I might see what a bedding and full float will do for that one.The 260 only has about 80 rounds through it and has already shot 3 groups under 1/2". Considering the barrel contour on them, I find that quite exceptional.
Those 77RLs are slender and light, and a joy to carry in the field. Almost as light and handy as my two Montanas, which have become the ones I grab first, now. Sorry, Roy!
After the threaded bolt knob loosened and fell off my CZ 550 Kevlar carbine in 9.3x62, I came to admire the one piece bolt of the Ruger even more. It ended up in a beaver pond.
Though a fine trigger on my hand full of 550's the trigger was a complicated cluster fk of unessasary stuff.
The Ruger mk ll and Hawkeye triggers are as simple as they come.
The pistol grip area of all my cz's were rediculously bulky and clubby
The Ruger Hawkeye stocks are sleek perfection, everywhere.
The 550 never came in a short action, which is odd considering they had the nice mini Mauser 527.
When CZ dropped the 550, the Ruger Hawkeyes were looking purdy good.
Under the recoil of my mighty 41 wildcat rifle, it sheared 4 scope base screws. The scope and base came back at my forehead at a high rate of speed. After bouncing off my thick skull, it continue rearward for another 15-20 ft.
Reading Jack O'Connor's book on rifles, I chuckled for five minutes straight at his comment: "dinky little 6-48 screws inherited from receiver sights"
Though 8-40 heated treated Brownells torx screws fixed the issue, I came to admire the intergral square bridge system with a RECOIL LUG, rather than recoil forces directly on the screws.
One overlooked improvement on the Hawkeye, is the reduced metal taken off the magazine followers on the Hawkeyes over the mk ll's. There are a couple other action-specific areas they reduced weight as well, if someone might take the time to notice.
Maybe one of the gun magazine parrots with the same old talking points will take notice, and spread the word:
Geow, My apologies on the confusion, I was referring to a different rifle. I was using the supplied 6-48 screws that came with the scope rail I affixed:
Tang safety Ruger rifles seem to have always been great shooters. Every single one I have owned shot well The new version with 3 position I like it’s functions better in the action but they have Ben about 50/50 on accuracy Matter of fact a 308 I had one time still ranks as the worst shooting rifle I have ever owned. Shot about a foot group new out of the box. It’s long gone. Currently one of my most accurate sporters is an identical one in 223. So there you go
I like the M77/Hawkeye, too. I only have two right now. A M77 MkII Express .270 and a Hawkeye African 6.5x55 Swedish. I've owned several in the past, most recently a Gunsite Scout in ,308, and a M77 MkII stainless .30-06 in a boat paddle stock. The only issue I ever had was that the trigger on the Gunsite was way too light. Under 2 lbs. It was virtually a hair trigger. Never felt comfortable with that, but never did anything about it. Ended up selling it. I gave the M77 MkII stainless to my son in California.
The only other issue (a non-issue really) is that none of the CRF features worked as well as they do on my M70s. On my M70s, once the cartridge clears the magazine, it literally pops up behind the extractor. Not so on any M77 I've ever had. Once the catridge on those clears the magazine, they get forced up behind the extractors as they get pushed into the chamber. Otherwise, they don't pop up behind the extractor.
Ur full o sht.
My Ruger Hawkeye controls the round earlier in the bolt stroke than an original Oberndorf sporting Mauser. The original, by which all others are judged. This 1922 rifle existed long before any Winchester model 70. How fkn " controlled round" do you need?
Was at Brownells today. The prices were astonishing, however, they had new 77s, SS compacts in 223, 243, (awesome kid gun, or adult gun) walnut and blue in 7rm, 7-08, 270, Hawkeye Pred in 223 and another. All looked excellently put together.
RARs should be $350 max. Junk that is accurate. Like dating a chunky redhead that's a good lay, hard to love. LOL
And 77's should be $500 max. Made of cheaply cast parts, rough actions, clunky and spotty accuracy IME.
Was at Brownells today. The prices were astonishing, however, they had new 77s, SS compacts in 223, 243, (awesome kid gun, or adult gun) walnut and blue in 7rm, 7-08, 270, Hawkeye Pred in 223 and another. All looked excellently put together.
RARs should be $350 max. Junk that is accurate. Like dating a chunky redhead that's a good lay, hard to love. LOL
And 77's should be $500 max. Made of cheaply cast parts, rough actions, clunky and spotty accuracy IME.
LOL So compact laminates for $999 wouldn't float yours?
My Hawkeye Predator was hella accurate. Absurd how low I got it for, at a gunshow, back in the olden days of 2013 IIRC.
In today, an original 6.5 Creedmoor run, 77 Hawkeye, blue/walnut. I'm comfy having put over $500 towards it. LOL, There's ample boltway clearance that's for sure. 👍 However, I think Bill would still approve.
BTW off topic and all, saw a Howa Hunter finally, for under $600. Gotta think it's a hella bargain this day and age, for those wanting wood, adjustable trigger, threaded. Nothing special on the wood to metal fit, standard CNC hack.
My Ruger Hawkeye controls the round earlier in the bolt stroke than an original Oberndorf sporting Mauser. The original, by which all others are judged. This 1922 rifle existed long before any Winchester model 70.
Good for you and your Ruger that works better than the original Mauser. Mine don't, and none of mine ever have. Every CFR Ruger I've ever owned had a questionable CRF feature. Ruger's version of controlled round feed is inconsistent AT BEST. And I'm not the only person that's ever notice it. Here's my Hawkeye African:
Better than Ruger can provide. Maybe your fatter bullets help. I'd send it back to Ruger, but since every M77/Hawkeye I've ever had (.30-06, .308, .270 and 6.5X55) acted exactly the same way, I figure its just a feature.
Here's the way its supposed to work. I've got 4 M70s (.270, .308, .30-06 & .300 WM) and they all work exactly this way.
I've owned a handful. Being a lefty shooting righty guns, I strongly prefer the tang safety for ergonomics, but I can still run the bolt safety on the Mk2 with my hand on the stock. I've never owned any of the newer Hawkeye era rifles. All of the old tangers shot very well except a little compact in 250 Savage, which was disappointing because it was the one I wanted to like most.
The Mk2s were hit and miss on accuracy for me. One in 243 was one of the better shooters I've owned, but another in 257 Roberts was just a hopeless bullet slinger.
As a whole, I'd really just call it personal preference between the designs, though.
Was at Brownells today. The prices were astonishing, however, they had new 77s, SS compacts in 223, 243, (awesome kid gun, or adult gun) walnut and blue in 7rm, 7-08, 270, Hawkeye Pred in 223 and another. All looked excellently put together.
RARs should be $350 max. Junk that is accurate. Like dating a chunky redhead that's a good lay, hard to love. LOL
And 77's should be $500 max. Made of cheaply cast parts, rough actions, clunky and spotty accuracy IME.
That would be nice if they stayed no more than $500. Keep the inaccurate rumors going so they will. I haven't been around a lot of M77's, but the ones I have been were more than accurate enough. My wife's Mark ll in 6.5x55 will put 120g Speers and 140 NPT into the same hole at 100 yards with her shooting it. She did this more than once so most likely not a fluke.
My first bolt action rifle was a M77 7mm rem mag that I bought new in 1986 about a week after I turned 18. I loved that rifle but no matter what I did I couldn't make it shoot more than 4" groups at 100 yds. I was convinced it was the ammo which got me into handloading where I poured about $500 worth of components through it and still couldn't make it hit a barn from the inside. Despite this I killed a pile of deer with it, I loved the way it handled and to this day think the tang safety is where a safety should be on every gun, anything else is inferior.
It wasn't until I bought a savage 220 swift that I realized the 4" groups weren't me, the savage would routinely do 1/2" without effort. I had the ruger rebarreled and it was showing promise when my dad's house was broken into and it was stolen. By that time my tastes had turned to stainless M70's, but that Ruger was still the nicest handling bolt action I've had and I miss it. I didn't replace it with another M77 because I was burned with the horrid accuracy, and it was 30 years before I'd touch another Ruger because of the piss poor accuracy. When I finally decided to buy another Ruger it was an American rifle in .223 which shoots tiny groups without effort. If my M77 had shot half as well as that $300 American rifle I'd have a safe full of them right now. The dismal accuracy burned me so bad I wouldn't touch another Ruger for 30 years.
My father in law has a tang safety 7 Mag that shoots 3 shots through the same hole at 100 yards with hand loads. He bought it in the early 80’s for elk hunting in Wyoming. They moved to Arizona in the late 80’s and it sat in the safe until several years ago when he let me use it for a hunt. Went to sight it in after it was sitting for about 25 years with ammo loaded that long ago and that’s what it did. One of his hunting buddies accurized it for him.
10glocks, I've seen some of your outlandish claims. Most recent one: you posted a bunch of senseless pictures of a two piece model 70 bolt and claimed it was one piece.
Then disparaged a bunch of gunsmiths and hunters who either repaired, or welded or pinned for assurance, to include Echols.
Your problem is you shoot off at the mouth over trivial sht and you use guns for nothing. If you hunted as much as you shoot off at the mouth, you'd have some real experience.
All of your gun pics, nary a scratch. In the end, you're just another typical middle to late aged, gun glutt collector.
Hypothetically thinking out loud, that is your forte.......carry on.
You come into this thread and immediately call me a liar without even trying to discuss the issue in a civilized manner like a man. Then I post a video of the rifle doing exactly what I said it does and then you decide to justify yourself with more disparaging comments. You decide dropping an F bomb gives you more credibility. I don't care what your experience is, "mainer in ak," you're unimpressive. If you can't conduct yourself in a respectable manner and have a civilized discussion, you're worthless. You apparently can't admit that you were wrong and throw a tantrum to distract from the fact that I proved what you said I was "full of [bleep]" over. That makes you a gutless turd in my book. A presumptuous gutless turd, at that. Have a good day.
Was at Brownells today. The prices were astonishing, however, they had new 77s, SS compacts in 223, 243, (awesome kid gun, or adult gun) walnut and blue in 7rm, 7-08, 270, Hawkeye Pred in 223 and another. All looked excellently put together.
RARs should be $350 max. Junk that is accurate. Like dating a chunky redhead that's a good lay, hard to love. LOL
You are being generous. I have the 22 rifle and it shot 6" groups at 50 yards. I sent it back and now it is a tack driver after adding a Timney. Still built like a POS
Was at Brownells today. The prices were astonishing, however, they had new 77s, SS compacts in 223, 243, (awesome kid gun, or adult gun) walnut and blue in 7rm, 7-08, 270, Hawkeye Pred in 223 and another. All looked excellently put together.
RARs should be $350 max. Junk that is accurate. Like dating a chunky redhead that's a good lay, hard to love. LOL
You are being generous. I have the 22 rifle and it shot 6" groups at 50 yards. I sent it back and now it is a tack driver after adding a Timney. Still built like a POS
Yah, that'd piss me off! I have yet to fire my RAR 22.
I've had a few RAR centerfires. Easy accuracy yet purely fuggly. I can't really say that I like anything about them. Fit, finish, styling, nada.
I have one of the American Ranches in 300BO (actually the only Ruger I currently own) and I'd have to agree. It's pretty accurate and rugged, but also dang homely. I really wish it had iron sights. I'm thinking of getting a front ramp put on mine and mounting a peep on the scope base.
I have one of the American Ranches in 300BO (actually the only Ruger I currently own) and I'd have to agree. It's pretty accurate and rugged, but also dang homely. I really wish it had iron sights. I'm thinking of getting a front ramp put on mine and mounting a peep on the scope base.
I have a project like that in mind, albeit on a different action and chambering. Compact peepsighted goodness, suppressed for yard deer. LOL .
The older I get, the more I try to get away from scopes. I only have a couple of rifles with them now, the rest are all peeps or straight irons, but my eyes aren't that great with notch and blades anymore, so I'm working on getting peeps on all of them.
I've owned a handful. Being a lefty shooting righty guns, I strongly prefer the tang safety for ergonomics, but I can still run the bolt safety on the Mk2 with my hand on the stock. I've never owned any of the newer Hawkeye era rifles. All of the old tangers shot very well except a little compact in 250 Savage, which was disappointing because it was the one I wanted to like most.
The Mk2s were hit and miss on accuracy for me. One in 243 was one of the better shooters I've owned, but another in 257 Roberts was just a hopeless bullet slinger.
As a whole, I'd really just call it personal preference between the designs, though.
I'm a lefty who runs a righty Hawkeye. I don't have trouble with the safety either. I owned several Mk II's in the past and I much prefer the contours of the Hawkeye
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.
I like the M77/Hawkeye, too. I only have two right now. A M77 MkII Express .270 and a Hawkeye African 6.5x55 Swedish. I've owned several in the past, most recently a Gunsite Scout in ,308, and a M77 MkII stainless .30-06 in a boat paddle stock. The only issue I ever had was that the trigger on the Gunsite was way too light. Under 2 lbs. It was virtually a hair trigger. Never felt comfortable with that, but never did anything about it. Ended up selling it. I gave the M77 MkII stainless to my son in California.
The only other issue (a non-issue really) is that none of the CRF features worked as well as they do on my M70s. On my M70s, once the cartridge clears the magazine, it literally pops up behind the extractor. Not so on any M77 I've ever had. Once the catridge on those clears the magazine, they get forced up behind the extractors as they get pushed into the chamber. Otherwise, they don't pop up behind the extractor.
Round control is very spotty on rugers and model 70's. About the only fool proof factory CRF action is a mauser 98 in its original chambering. Mauser mag box and feed lips were designed for each specific cartridge vs the generic mag boxes and feed lip setups on Rugers and Winchesters.
I've been happy with my Hawkeyes. They shoot well and are are very rugged. The action might not come from the factory quite as smooth as some other rifles, but they wear in pretty quickly with use. I think they are a good choice for a reliable no nonsense hunting rifle. I put a lighter trigger spring in my .308, but otherwise they are stock. I've never had any problems with them.
Mine is just the same, wife surprised me one Christmas and a good local gunsmith did a trigger job, bedded the action, put a custom muzzle brake (could have done without that) but the accuracy went from good to great in that 7mm RM with maximum hand loads. Four times sighting in before season 3 shots you could cover with a dime & every year for over 40 now a 1/2 dollar would cover them. Killed truckloads of deer & elk & a nice boar at 500+ yards with a 10 mph crosswind showing some younger alpha type hunters that old guys & old rifles shoot better.
My first bolt rifle was a tanger in 30-06. I guess I got lucky as it shot and still shoots very good. Never had issue one with it. I would say its my base Line by which all my other rifles have been judged on. I bought it back around 1987 for $100 from my brother who came into it on a car trade deal. He needed the money for a date. It came with a tasco scope that was dang near junk. I replaced the scope several times ending up with a vx3 3.5-10x40. These days I have two other rifles I use and favor over the tanger but used it for two decades. About the best $100 I ever spent on a piece of gear.
Why did Ruger produce both intergral scope bases on their receivers and flat top receivers that took aftermarket bases?
I don't have the answer, but I do know the ST, with sights, PL, without sights, "round top" models did/do take the same mounts as used for the Remington 700.
Round control is very spotty on rugers and model 70's. About the only fool proof factory CRF action is a mauser 98 in its original chambering. Mauser mag box and feed lips were designed for each specific cartridge vs the generic mag boxes and feed lip setups on Rugers and Winchesters.
I agree generally with this, though the M70s seem to be more consistent than the M77s. In fact, some M77 MkIIs aren't controlled round feed at all. They are push feed with the fixed ejector. Sort of an intermediate design between the M77 push feed, plunger ejector and M77 MkII with CRF and fixed ejector.
Why did Ruger produce both intergral scope bases on their receivers and flat top receivers that took aftermarket bases?
To give people a choice.What a concept!
Didn’t last very long, so either they miscalculated the demand, or dealers ordered the ones with dovetails. Based on naysaying here, I think many would welcome a return to that option.
I've owned quite a few Ruger 77s, tang safety style, MK2 style, and Hawkeyes.
At one time I had two tang safety 77 RSIs in 243 that I bought in 1999 and 2001 and were six serial numbers apart. One was a very good shooter and the other was a 6 MOA shooter on a good day. I rebarreled the 6 MOA shooter and moved on, but if that had been my only experience with Ruger 77s I would have been very disappointed and probably wouldn't have bought another one.
Among my current inventory of Rugers are a trio of stainless Hawkeye that have been bedded in McM Hunter style stocks. These rifles are chambered in 223, 6.5 CM, and 338 FED.. The 223 and 6.5 CM are excellent shooters and the 338 FED is a good, but not excellent, shooter. If I was forced to keep only a few rifles, I would be hard pressed not to keep these three as they would be adequate for anything that I'm likely to hunt for in the contiguous 48 States..
Round control is very spotty on rugers and model 70's. About the only fool proof factory CRF action is a mauser 98 in its original chambering. Mauser mag box and feed lips were designed for each specific cartridge vs the generic mag boxes and feed lip setups on Rugers and Winchesters.
I agree generally with this, though the M70s seem to be more consistent than the M77s. In fact, some M77 MkIIs aren't controlled round feed at all. They are push feed with the fixed ejector. Sort of an intermediate design between the M77 push feed, plunger ejector and M77 MkII with CRF and fixed ejector.
I don’t think the original tang safety is controlled round feed at all. On my 308 flat bolt it pushes a cartridge into the chamber and then the extractor clips over the rim when the bolt is fully closed. I think the 1st MK II rifles were the same before switching to full CRF.
I don’t think the original tang safety is controlled round feed at all. On my 308 flat bolt it pushes a cartridge into the chamber and then the extractor clips over the rim when the bolt is fully closed. I think the 1st MK II rifles were the same before switching to full CRF.
AFAIK, that's correct. I understand the original M77s were push feed with a plunger ejector. The M77 MkII went to a fixed blade ejector, but was still push feed. Later MkIIs were CRF with fixed blade ejectors. All Hawkeyes to my knowledge are CRF.
This is what the first MkII push-feed (fixed blade ejectors) bolt faces looked like. Later MkIIs were opened up at the bottom to permit CRF. In fact, I've read that you can have the bottom lip milled offer and create a CRF feed out of a push feed, but not if it has a plunger ejector.
I don’t think the original tang safety is controlled round feed at all. On my 308 flat bolt it pushes a cartridge into the chamber and then the extractor clips over the rim when the bolt is fully closed. I think the 1st MK II rifles were the same before switching to full CRF.
AFAIK, that's correct. I understand the original M77s were push feed with a plunger ejector. The M77 MkII went to a fixed blade ejector, but was still push feed. Later MkIIs were CRF with fixed blade ejectors. All Hawkeyes to my knowledge are CRF.
This is what the first MkII push-feed (fixed blade ejectors) bolt faces looked like. Later MkIIs were opened up at the bottom to permit CRF. In fact, I've read that you can have the bottom lip milled offer and create a CRF feed out of a push feed, but not if it has a plunger ejector.
I have one of those push feed MKIIs. I have probably looked at a 100 MKIIs and the one I own is the only one I have ever seen in person so I would guess the vast majority of MkII's are CRF. When I got my push feed MKII I wrote to Ruger and asked if they would modify it to CRF and they declined.
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.
Has anyone here bought a aftermarket fiberglass stock for the m77?
Was looking at the H&S Precision stock (PSS152). Was looking for feedback or reccomendations.
Aftermarket synthetic, yes.
HS Precision, no, just McMs.
I’ve used a couple Ruger Classics from McMillan and also a HighTech stock from Kevin Weaver on an older tang Safety 35 Whelen. I like the High Tech quite a lot and it’s very light.
Has anyone here bought a aftermarket fiberglass stock for the m77?
Was looking at the H&S Precision stock (PSS152). Was looking for feedback or reccomendations.
Aftermarket synthetic, yes.
HS Precision, no, just McMs.
I’ve used a couple Ruger Classics from McMillan and also a HighTech stock from Kevin Weaver on an older tang Safety 35 Whelen. I like the High Tech quite a lot and it’s very light.
High Tech from Weaver.
That's a beautiful tanger Scotty.. Ruger 77's are really a working man's rifle. They are simple and functional and robust. Yours looks great. Probably a good shooter too.
Regarding synthetic stocks, my favorite Tanger wears a McMillan and a Lilja tube (7mmRM). It's a mid 1970's rifle that my mother gave to my dad when they were dating. I believe the stock is what McMillan calls the "R-pattern".
The pattern is very close duplicate of the original wood handle, as seen here on my .338WM Tanger. Some say these stocks hurt their shoulders, but they seem to fit me very well and handle recoil just fine.
Not an H&S Precision, but a Brown Precision Kevlar is on my Mk ll 7mm-08. 7 pounds 2 ounces with a Shilen #1 taper barrel and a Zeiss Diavari 1.5-6x42 30mm. For a whitetail rifle, I knew that I wanted stainless and built that rifle up before the M70's were ss.
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.
[/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.
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.
I accidentally stumbled upon both within the past 2 years. The 30-06 guide rifle had had the muzzle break cut off and barrel re-crowned. I put it in a Bell & Carlson Ruger stock. I have not had the opportunity to put a scope on it or get to the range with it. It is not a light weight, but it’s compactness certainly seems handy. I think this is the only one that I have personally seen in a 30-06. It is a close match for the 375 and 416 Ruger Alaskans.
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??
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:
Check out Ottesons book. He details how crooked the actions are as cast and the hammering it takes 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.
You are completely missing the point. The point is they are cheap rifles and should be priced as such, but they are not.
I accidentally stumbled upon both within the past 2 years. The 30-06 guide rifle had had the muzzle break cut off and barrel re-crowned. I put it in a Bell & Carlson Ruger stock. I have not had the opportunity to put a scope on it or get to the range with it. It is not a light weight, but it’s compactness certainly seems handy. I think this is the only one that I have personally seen in a 30-06. It is a close match for the 375 and 416 Ruger Alaskans.
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.
You are completely missing the point. The point is they are cheap rifles and should be priced as such, but they are not.
If that was the point, you could have saved a lot of effort and just said so initially. If you don't like the way they look, that's just your personal opinion, which you are more than welcome to have.
I personally like M70s. But I have always admired Bill Ruger's ability to "meet the market" starting with the Single Six.
Good lord dude, let it go. People love Rugers because they're bomb proof and last forever. If being cheap makes them that way, give me a cheap rifle...
I've had two walnut/blued and regret selling both.
Good lord dude, let it go. People love Rugers because they're bomb proof and last forever. If being cheap makes them that way, give me a cheap rifle...
I've had two walnut/blued and regret selling both.
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.
You are completely missing the point. The point is they are cheap rifles and should be priced as such, but they are not.
If that was the point, you could have saved a lot of effort and just said so initially. If you don't like the way they look, that's just your personal opinion, which you are more than welcome to have.
I personally like M70s. But I have always admired Bill Ruger's ability to "meet the market" starting with the Single Six.
I did...but regardless every single thing I said was absolutely true and if a guy want to pay model 70 prices for a cheap gun have at it.
Good lord dude, let it go. People love Rugers because they're bomb proof and last forever. If being cheap makes them that way, give me a cheap rifle...
I've had two walnut/blued and regret selling both.
You ever wore out a rifle? I have several that have been rebarreld several times but for the life of me I can't kill the action. As such lasting for ever is a pretty damn low bar.
I've had rifles with polymer parts break. I've had rifles that were supposedly high quality have poor bluing and corrosion resistance or have bad extractors that broke. And I've had rifles come brand new with feeding problems and stock fitment problems. None of them were ever made by Ruger. You see TONS of M77s from the 70s still in solid shape and shooting great. 50 years from now, how many Savage and Predator and Tikka plastic rifles do you think will still be in action?
I get it. You don't like them and think they're overpriced. That's fine. But for what they actually cost (the only $1300 M77 I've ever seen is the special anniversary whatever model that's been sitting unsold, online, for 2 years), it's a solid, rugged, dependable rifle with all wood and metal parts. If you can't figure out why people keep them and like them, there's not much else we can do for you.
Brownells correction. Compact lam/ss only $899. Hawkeye Predator, only $999. One of each left, so they sold several at those prices over a week. Craptastic RARs, $450.
Potential current 'bargains', sans plastic. Weatherby VG2 Sporter and Howa Hunters. Howa under $600, VG2 under $700, and fairly well done. (Howa seen elsewhere.) The wood Weatherby VG2 was pretty darn ok if one likes the the styling/ergos. I hope to pick one up, just because, after seeing it but not seeing the chambering of choice.
Brownells correction. Compact lam/ss only $899. Hawkeye Predator, only $999. One of each left, so they sold several at those prices over a week. Craptastic RARs, $450.
Potential current 'bargains', sans plastic. Weatherby VG2 Sporter and Howa Hunters. Howa under $600, VG2 under $700, and fairly well done. (Howa seen elsewhere.) The wood Weatherby VG2 was pretty darn ok if one likes the the styling/ergos. I hope to pick one up, just because, after seeing it but not seeing the chambering of choice.
Are these at a physical store location? They don't seem to have much of any rifles in stock online.
Brownells correction. Compact lam/ss only $899. Hawkeye Predator, only $999. One of each left, so they sold several at those prices over a week. Craptastic RARs, $450.
Potential current 'bargains', sans plastic. Weatherby VG2 Sporter and Howa Hunters. Howa under $600, VG2 under $700, and fairly well done. (Howa seen elsewhere.) The wood Weatherby VG2 was pretty darn ok if one likes the the styling/ergos. I hope to pick one up, just because, after seeing it but not seeing the chambering of choice.
Are these at a physical store location? They don't seem to have much of any rifles in stock online.
At their store, yes sir, which is attached to the warehouse so you can get online stuff, with a little wait... Grinnell Iowa, right off I-80. Great restroom, free coffee and soda, guns and stuff. (A fraction of what they had 2 years ago, but, they're doing what they can.) And layaway too. Good AR trigger and grip display. Good riflescope display. Generally an expensive stop. 😁
I don't think I've ever seen someone lead off the praise of a place with the words "Great restroom" This is for sure a laugh for the day!
And for what it's worth, when I came to live in Alaska over 20 years ago the two rifles that ruled the roost where Rugers and New Haven Model 70s, with a noticeably greater number of M77s represented since they were cheaper. Rugged, trustworthy rifles.
Almost a comedy act watching them both lie, and twist things!
One point that the Fanboys always make on the outsourced barrel issue.
That they were outsourced. RUGER DIDNT MAKE THEM!!!
Big deal
And don't blame Wilson.
If you aren't involved in manufacturing, you might not understand. I work in a place that does outsourcing of varied products, for various companies and many applications.
Every product comes with a CUSTOMER supplied spec sheet. They determine the standards across a bunch of topics. Dimensions, how much solvent is in the material, resin content, how well it molds......it goes on and on, depending on product.
And that's just the standards. F'ups are a whole other deal.
We test for everything, and certify. The customers verify. If it's bad, it's scrapped or returned. They get another batch.
Once they use our component. Most liability is off us. They have verified quality.
See where this is going?
Ruger accepted these things for years. Bill even covered his bases by statements about "making hunting guns, not target rifles". Another poster claims Ruger was happy with his 2" groups.
Why hide this? It's 100% on Ruger. THEY SCREWED THE POOCH!
It's old news, they fixed that issue. Good in them. Finally.
The last two Ruger barrels I had to do with were Ruger made and they were quite good. Old standard loads shot very well without any fiddling, they didn't walk shots when warmed a bit nor did they foul to any significant degree.
I've had nearly half a dozen Mark II's and I love my Hawkeye. I never owned a Tanger but have hunted with on in 7mm mag. I'd like to pick up a tang safety 270 at some point.
Almost a comedy act watching them both lie, and twist things!
One point that the Fanboys always make on the outsourced barrel issue.
That they were outsourced. RUGER DIDNT MAKE THEM!!!
Big deal
And don't blame Wilson.
If you aren't involved in manufacturing, you might not understand. I work in a place that does outsourcing of varied products, for various companies and many applications.
Every product comes with a CUSTOMER supplied spec sheet. They determine the standards across a bunch of topics. Dimensions, how much solvent is in the material, resin content, how well it molds......it goes on and on, depending on product.
And that's just the standards. F'ups are a whole other deal.
We test for everything, and certify. The customers verify. If it's bad, it's scrapped or returned. They get another batch.
Once they use our component. Most liability is off us. They have verified quality.
See where this is going?
Ruger accepted these things for years. Bill even covered his bases by statements about "making hunting guns, not target rifles". Another poster claims Ruger was happy with his 2" groups.
Why hide this? It's 100% on Ruger. THEY SCREWED THE POOCH!
It's old news, they fixed that issue. Good in them. Finally.
Glad you were entertained...thanks for sharing your wisdom
I don't think I've ever seen someone lead off the praise of a place with the words "Great restroom" This is for sure a laugh for the day!
And for what it's worth, when I came to live in Alaska over 20 years ago the two rifles that ruled the roost where Rugers and New Haven Model 70s, with a noticeably greater number of M77s represented since they were cheaper. Rugged, trustworthy rifles.
Trucking, it's led me to become a bit of restroom aficionado! LOL
The most accurate 77 that I have had was a 280 bought new in about 1978. It was a heavy barrel model. It was the most accurate 280 I've ever owned. I keep hoping that I'll find another good shooting 77 like that 280. I am now down to two 77's, a 7mm RM tanger that shoots OK with selected loads after I re-stocked it with a B&C stock. The other is a Hawkeye 22-250 that I bought here on the fire. I've worked with both, quite a bit. Let's just say, I prefer 700's. The last 77 I sold was a 416 Rigby, beautiful rifle, I never scoped it or tried to shoot tiny groups with it. 20 rounds of 400 grain solids and it became "for sale". I never knew what MD was talking about with recoil headaches until that rifle, then I learned it good.
I don't think I've ever seen someone lead off the praise of a place with the words "Great restroom" This is for sure a laugh for the day!
And for what it's worth, when I came to live in Alaska over 20 years ago the two rifles that ruled the roost where Rugers and New Haven Model 70s, with a noticeably greater number of M77s represented since they were cheaper. Rugged, trustworthy rifles.
Trucking, it's led me to become a bit of restroom aficionado! LOL
That’s a job which would make you appreciate such things for sure!
I've had rifles with polymer parts break. I've had rifles that were supposedly high quality have poor bluing and corrosion resistance or have bad extractors that broke. And I've had rifles come brand new with feeding problems and stock fitment problems. None of them were ever made by Ruger. You see TONS of M77s from the 70s still in solid shape and shooting great. 50 years from now, how many Savage and Predator and Tikka plastic rifles do you think will still be in action?
I get it. You don't like them and think they're overpriced. That's fine. But for what they actually cost (the only $1300 M77 I've ever seen is the special anniversary whatever model that's been sitting unsold, online, for 2 years), it's a solid, rugged, dependable rifle with all wood and metal parts. If you can't figure out why people keep them and like them, there's not much else we can do for you.
The Tikka beat out the 77 in Canadian military trials.
I've had rifles with polymer parts break. I've had rifles that were supposedly high quality have poor bluing and corrosion resistance or have bad extractors that broke. And I've had rifles come brand new with feeding problems and stock fitment problems. None of them were ever made by Ruger. You see TONS of M77s from the 70s still in solid shape and shooting great. 50 years from now, how many Savage and Predator and Tikka plastic rifles do you think will still be in action?
I get it. You don't like them and think they're overpriced. That's fine. But for what they actually cost (the only $1300 M77 I've ever seen is the special anniversary whatever model that's been sitting unsold, online, for 2 years), it's a solid, rugged, dependable rifle with all wood and metal parts. If you can't figure out why people keep them and like them, there's not much else we can do for you.
The Tikka beat out the 77 in Canadian military trials.
I don't think they actually lost to Tikka, it was more that Ruger wouldn't give the drawings for Colt Canada to build them if they won. IIRC
Buddy gifted me two Douglas barreled factory Rugers. One was a sporter barreled 22-250 and the other a varmint barreled 220 swift. Both exceedingly accurate with 55 grain ballistic tips. I dropped the 22-250 into a clearance McMillan I snagged one year and bedded the lug. Still shoots great and keeps my factory stock intact. Didn't read the whole thread but I have had good luck with Ruger 77 rifles over the years.
I've had rifles with polymer parts break. I've had rifles that were supposedly high quality have poor bluing and corrosion resistance or have bad extractors that broke. And I've had rifles come brand new with feeding problems and stock fitment problems. None of them were ever made by Ruger. You see TONS of M77s from the 70s still in solid shape and shooting great. 50 years from now, how many Savage and Predator and Tikka plastic rifles do you think will still be in action?
I get it. You don't like them and think they're overpriced. That's fine. But for what they actually cost (the only $1300 M77 I've ever seen is the special anniversary whatever model that's been sitting unsold, online, for 2 years), it's a solid, rugged, dependable rifle with all wood and metal parts. If you can't figure out why people keep them and like them, there's not much else we can do for you.
The Tikka beat out the 77 in Canadian military trials.
I don't think they actually lost to Tikka, it was more that Ruger wouldn't give the drawings for Colt Canada to build them if they won. IIRC
There was a member here that had the results of the test. Sorry I can't recall his handle. Those results suggested the Tikka was more reliable in adverse conditions.
The only tanger I have at the moment is a sporter .22-250 I bought used from a little gun shop in Canton Texas back in the early 90s. It was beat up then. I beat it up worse. I finally had it refinished a few years back after my wife claimed it as her own. Shoots decent but shot "decenter" after a bedding and trigger job. Shoots most anything close to an inch +/- and the loads it likes will easily run sub MOA. Certainly good enough for a sporter weight predator calling rifle. It developed an ejection issue a few years back because the extractor was dropping the case too soon. If you ran it fast it would spit out the cases most of the time but sometimes not. If you ran it slow it would almost always drop them. Took it to a local guy that did a nice job tweaking the extractor and it runs great again.
My Mark IIs have all been very reliable and most have shot somewhere between damn fine and good enough. Kinda matches my experience with MOST other factory rifles with a few notable exceptions.
So far my son and I have both bloodied are stainless Mark IIs this season already. I am kinda slutty though and plan to hunt with Model 70s, 700s and 77s this year.
Found a Hawkeye in satin blue and synthetic stocked in 308 Win, for $929 CAN ($727.31 USD). With the exchange rate being what it is and current shortages, decided to jump on it, in all its blocky, rectangular, investment cast glory.
Doubt I'll care much if it aint the smoothest and the trigger is not a Jewell, when I actually hunt with it. Just want a rifle I can take out no matter where or when, that feels sturdier than an American, Savage etc. Think it'll do just fine. We'll see when it arrives.
Whatever the 77 is or isn't if society were to collapse and force me off grid I would reach right past every lever action I own and grab my Hawkeye 30-06. I view it as the most bombproof rifle I own
Whatever the 77 is or isn't if society were to collapse and force me off grid I would reach right past every lever action I own and grab my Hawkeye 30-06. I view it as the most bombproof rifle I own
Totally agree in principle.
I don't own a single Lever Action cf rifle but in that^^^^ situation I would reach past every PUMP and grab 2 B As.
This thread really has brought out the M77 sellers. Within the past week the famous gun auction site has has a lot of M77’s hit the block. Quite a few ultra lites.
"There was a member here that had the results of the test. Sorry I can't recall his handle. Those results suggested the Tikka was more reliable in adverse conditions".
Yes sir, I remember reading that as well. Living & hunting in the South, that Canadian test didn't influence me tho. However IF it performed that well in that cold and snow etc.... it would work here in the heat/humidity,
Guys, I'm not poo pooing Rugers !! I have had many rifles & handguns with no complaints other than bulk & weight.
In 2003 when I chose Tikka T 3 Lite..... I have never looked back. No Regerts! lol
"There was a member here that had the results of the test. Sorry I can't recall his handle. Those results suggested the Tikka was more reliable in adverse conditions".
Yes sir, I remember reading that as well. Living & hunting in the South, that Canadian test didn't influence me tho. However IF it performed that well in that cold and snow etc.... it would work here in the heat/humidity,
Guys, I'm not poo pooing Rugers !! I have had many rifles & handguns with no complaints other than bulk & weight.
In 2003 when I chose Tikka T 3 Lite..... I have never looked back. No Regerts! lol
Jerry
Jerry,
I've taken a spin around the interweb (admittedly very short) but couldn't find anything official on the results of the test. Hopefully I can find something! This fellow seems to say that Ruger won the actual testing protocol. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWad_jOVfls
Course he could be wrong! Theres sure nothing that looks weak about a Tikka!
"There was a member here that had the results of the test. Sorry I can't recall his handle. Those results suggested the Tikka was more reliable in adverse conditions".
Yes sir, I remember reading that as well. Living & hunting in the South, that Canadian test didn't influence me tho. However IF it performed that well in that cold and snow etc.... it would work here in the heat/humidity,
Guys, I'm not poo pooing Rugers !! I have had many rifles & handguns with no complaints other than bulk & weight.
In 2003 when I chose Tikka T 3 Lite..... I have never looked back. No Regerts! lol
Jerry
Jerry,
I've taken a spin around the interweb (admittedly very short) but couldn't find anything official on the results of the test. Hopefully I can find something! This fellow seems to say that Ruger won the actual testing protocol. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWad_jOVfls
Course he could be wrong! Theres sure nothing that looks weak about a Tikka!
But I really hope I find more
I know I couldn't find it. I don't have that much time. But I do remember the article and they chose Tikka.
Oh wow, first a brass mallet/crooked receivers, now the "Canadian Ranger” Tikka. Going out on a limb there Bwalker.......
I could care less what a bunch of overweight, weekend warrior reservists think a cold weather rifle should be. They are overly hyped, overly heavy, overpriced, etc.
I put in 8 years up here in Alaska in the Army training in the cold. Did the mountaineering, and the cold weather course at the black rapids northern warfare training center.
Nowadays, I hunt caribou by freight dog team in 30-40 below zero:
Oh wow, first a brass mallet/crooked receivers, now the "Canadian Ranger” Tikka. Going out on a limb there Bwalker.......
I could care less what a bunch of overweight, weekend warrior reservists think a cold weather rifle should be.
** -> They are overly hyped, overly heavy, overpriced, _<<** etc.
I put in 8 years up here in Alaska in the Army training in the cold. Did the mountaineering, and the cold weather course at the black rapids northern warfare training center.
Nowadays, I hunt caribou by freight dog team in 30-40 below zero:
** -> " They are overly hyped, overly heavy, overpriced, " _<<** etc.
HUH ? My T3 Lite 270 & T3X Lite 7 RM are by far lighter than any Ruger I've held EXCEPT the 77 UL.
Are far as price ??? where are you pricing them? Oh yeah you can buy the 'bargain' rifles cheaper but......
I could add more but ........................ Accuracy... bar none.
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.
You are completely missing the point. The point is they are cheap rifles and should be priced as such, but they are not.
If they are cheap than what is a Remington action? I see more cheap bolts made off bar stock then investment cast. BTW a 700 cannot hold a candle to a 77 in ruggedness, no way shape or form.
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.
You are completely missing the point. The point is they are cheap rifles and should be priced as such, but they are not.
If they are cheap than what is a Remington action? I see more cheap bolts made off bar stock then investment cast. BTW a 700 cannot hold a candle to a 77 in ruggedness, no way shape or form.
Jwall, the t3x arctic is too heavy for winter snow shoeing with heavy winter clothes.
I could pick up two Ruger's for the price of one of those:
The barrel contour on that thing is a beast, and the Sako sights apparently add up to $600 a pull.
No thanks, does nothing for me either.
Might look real hard at a shorter barreled T3x, something like a version of a Battue with a somewhat heavier barrel and better sights though. That'd be wicked. Not full on CTR thick but thicker.
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.
You are completely missing the point. The point is they are cheap rifles and should be priced as such, but they are not.
If they are cheap than what is a Remington action? I see more cheap bolts made off bar stock then investment cast. BTW a 700 cannot hold a candle to a 77 in ruggedness, no way shape or form.
Remingtons are better made than a 77. And are pretty damn reliable too boot.
I will not get into the “what is better” quagmire. Reminds me of Ford / Chevy / Dodge / GMC / Toyota / etc / etc. The Rugers have been suitable enough for me that I bought a used stainless Mark II today. If it groups as well as the Mark II 338 Winchester, 375 and 416 Rugers that I have, I will be very pleased.
The natural progression of a 77 thread.... Tikkas, Remingtoons, and Winchesters.... 😁
I think I'd prefer a compact rifle for slugging around the far north...
Carry-on.
Given the latter are all better than the former isn't that natural?
I'm not anti-ruger at all. I like the Blackhawk and the American for what it costs is a great value. I fact I'd buy another American, but I would not buy another boat anchor 77.
The natural progression of a 77 thread.... Tikkas, Remingtoons, and Winchesters.... 😁
I think I'd prefer a compact rifle for slugging around the far north...
Carry-on.
Given the latter are all better than the former isn't that natural?
I'm not anti-ruger at all. I like the Blackhawk and the American for what it costs is a great value. I fact I'd buy another American, but I would not buy another boat anchor 77.
The natural progression of a 77 thread.... Tikkas, Remingtoons, and Winchesters.... 😁
I think I'd prefer a compact rifle for slugging around the far north...
Carry-on.
Given the latter are all better than the former isn't that natural?
I'm not anti-ruger at all. I like the Blackhawk and the American for what it costs is a great value. I fact I'd buy another American, but I would not buy another boat anchor 77.
I've seen multiple threads from you, where you sht on Ruger. Last one, was when folks were excited for the Ruger aquisition of marlin.
So a cast 77 receiver no good in your world, but cast parts on a revolver are ok? What the fk kinda logic is that?
Anyhoo, based on my experiences with many Ruger revolvers, they are just as effective, reliable, and useful to Alaskans, as the Ruger 77's:
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.
You are completely missing the point. The point is they are cheap rifles and should be priced as such, but they are not.
If they are cheap than what is a Remington action? I see more cheap bolts made off bar stock then investment cast. BTW a 700 cannot hold a candle to a 77 in ruggedness, no way shape or form.
Remingtons are better made than a 77. And are pretty damn reliable too boot.
Apparently those Ruger revolvers work also. I consider myself lucky to find a used but nearly new double action one. I have Ruger double actions in 22 LR, 357, 44, 45 Colt 454. Ruger single actions in 44, 45 Colt, 454, and 480 Ruger. Hell, I guess I am a Ruger fan by default. Several Ruger rifles from 223 through 416 Rugers. I have had a couple of hiccups with firearms, Ruger included but also other higher dollar manufacturers.
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.
You are completely missing the point. The point is they are cheap rifles and should be priced as such, but they are not.
If they are cheap than what is a Remington action? I see more cheap bolts made off bar stock then investment cast. BTW a 700 cannot hold a candle to a 77 in ruggedness, no way shape or form.
Remingtons are better made than a 77. And are pretty damn reliable too boot.
🤣
Yeah I tend to avoid these kinda discussions too...but I feel like thats gonna be a tough row to hoe, if its objective and not subjective. Don't care if the fella at Ruger beats them into shape with his pecker. Not a 700 hater at all, but....how?
The natural progression of a 77 thread.... Tikkas, Remingtoons, and Winchesters.... 😁
I think I'd prefer a compact rifle for slugging around the far north...
Carry-on.
Given the latter are all better than the former isn't that natural?
I'm not anti-ruger at all. I like the Blackhawk and the American for what it costs is a great value. I fact I'd buy another American, but I would not buy another boat anchor 77.
I've seen multiple threads from you, where you sht on Ruger. Last one, was when folks were excited for the Ruger aquisition of marlin.
So a cast 77 receiver no good in your world, but cast parts on a revolver are ok? What the fk kinda logic is that?
Anyhoo, based on my experiences with many Ruger revolvers, they are just as effective, reliable, and useful to Alaskans, as the Ruger 77's:
The Blackhawks are much more visually pleasing and better finished than the 77.
Did Ruger ever make a RS in the 3 position safety 30/06 or 308? I’m only finding plain barrels no sights
According to my info, "Reference of Ruger Firearms, Vloume Two", yes they did. Also noted..."The M77RS is a scarce model".
As you can see in the 77 Mark II Models, the M77RS is listed in many models,RS, RSBZ, RSI, RSFP, RSM, RSML, RSP, RSPA, RSPS, RLS, but the only reference specifically to 30-06 / 308 was in the M77RS (wood blue).
Again, pretty much the same models in stainless, KM77RS, but the stainless only lists the 30-06. BUT, with all things RUGER, never say never. They are out there you just have to sniff them out....Good Luck.
I've owned and shot a dozen or more M77's. I like them. I've had an easier time finding accurate loads for 700's and Model 70's overall. I dislike the looks of the stainless bolt handle on the MK II's. A small thing, I know, but it's my money. I had one of the limited Hawkeye African 9.3's but didn't like the recoil with heavy bullets. I'd love to see one of those in 30-06 or 300 H&H. Should have bought one in 275 Rigby. That looks like a sweet combo.
I hear the Ruger African 9.3's are terrible. I'm a nice guy and am willing to relieve some one from there misery if they cannot stand to be around theirs any longer..
I hate to hijack a thread but here goes. Being I’m looking to lighten up my Ruger Hawkeye. The stock is going to be the first change. Currently a Hogue, good stock but not light. I’m also likely to run open sights and shelf the scope. My style hunting permits that. It’s currently 9.5 lbs in current dress so I’d like a few pounds off if possible. I still hunt and track deer and run bear over hounds. I’ve found a Bell&Carlson stock at 2 lbs and haven’t found anything lighter. McMilllan doesn’t do Ruger. Any insight would be appreciated
If you looking for a lightweight stock for a Ruger MKII or Hawkeye. Give a good look at MPI. I now have 5, one kimber pattern and 4 ruger patterns. They finish out at between 22 and 24oz, (MPI has an even lighter option but I haven't tried that). I have has Rick Steinhour/extreme rifleworks, procure and fit and finish for me, They are very well bedded and finished and held up well. I haven't put one on a big cartridge yet but have them on a 358WIN, 338RCM, 300wsm, 308WIN and a 6.5 creed. I also have roughly a dozen McMillans in the classic pattern as well but they finish out ~32oz.
Im at 6lbs 7 oz on my 338 rcm carbine with open sights. Thats lighter than a 30-30 i carried all day in the appalacian foothills of northern maine as 10 year old kid.
Goes 7lbs 3oz scoped with a 2.5 fx ll in low ruger steel rings.
The latest crop of idiots who advocate 5 lb rifles, ill never understand it.
Rugers are not difficult to get lighter than a featherweight compact.
Thanks gents. Mine is a 35Whelen that started life as an ‘06. 23” Shilen 1:14 tube. I usually go anywhere from 6-15 miles a day during deer season. I hardly call the old Whelen a boomer so lighter than the current 9.5 lbs but a 5 lb fly weight ain’t the goal either.
Ive only had one 77, a MKII boat paddle .308. Wore the factory "pad". It wasnt as bad as people said, and it shot factory ammo decent. Actually, a pretty darn nice package. My only complaint would be the rings....i hate Ruger rings.
Trigger was on the heavy side but it shot well without any mod.
Proly shoulda kept it and just hunted the hell out of it.
The main thing to look out for with the original Model 77's is that they were made during Ruger's cheap barrel period, you could get a good one or it could be total crap.* Sometime around the 90's Ruger began producing their own barrels which were and still are good to very good.
All this IIRC.
You can also add to this the fact that many were prone to cracking the stock in the wrist area, just behind the tang. I have a .358 Win 77 tang safety that's gone thru 2 wood stocks. Next stock will be a composite - when/if I find one.
The main thing to look out for with the original Model 77's is that they were made during Ruger's cheap barrel period, you could get a good one or it could be total crap.* Sometime around the 90's Ruger began producing their own barrels which were and still are good to very good.
All this IIRC.
You can also add to this the fact that many were prone to cracking the stock in the wrist area, just behind the tang. I have a .358 Win 77 tang safety that's gone thru 2 wood stocks. Next stock will be a composite - when/if I find one.
Did you bed both of them and relieve around the tang? I never shoot a Ruger 77 without bedding it first
I hear the Ruger African 9.3's are terrible. I'm a nice guy and am willing to relieve some one from there misery if they cannot stand to be around theirs any longer..
Sorry, you can't have mine. It's one of my favorites.
Brinky72, there is a lot lighter Ruger hiding in there if you want to rework it. My MK ll .308 started out heavy, but I turned it into a 7mm-08 with a 20" #1 taper Shilen barrel and a Brown Precision Kevlar Pounder stock. 7# 2 ounces wearing a 30mm Zeiss 1.5-6x42 in Ruger rings. I was going to replace the trigger, but Brown Precision reworked it to perfectly acceptable. Full camo paint, Teflon coated bolt and sewn on Nylon sling.
Did Ruger ever make a RS in the 3 position safety 30/06 or 308? I’m only finding plain barrels no sights
I know for sure they made an African in .308 with a 20" barrel cause I got one from Whittakers a few years back. Wood is fence postish compared to my 9.3 African. The scope on it now is a 2.5x8 Leupold which is a better size than the 3.5x10 it has it this pic. Not pretty but I like it.
I don’t think that was marketed as an African model…. Do you have the code on the box label ????
I had to go to my storage space to find the box and it's listed as a HM77RS model #37101. It definitely looks like the compact magnums in .308 although the internet pics show the rear sight like my 9.3 instead of a Williams looking rear sight like mine has.
When I bought it Whittakers had it listed as an African though and it popped up since I was looking for a 6.5x55 African at the time.
It makes sense that it would be a RCM because all of the Africans I've seen had really good to great wood on them and mine certainly doesn't.
I have owned Ruger 77s for over 40 years, got my first 1 from the Fort Riley Outdoor Recreation Center in 1981, a 77R in 7x57. It wasn't a great shooter, as it had a long throat for 175 grain bullets. I donated it to a mission in Burundi, Rwanda, or Malawi, can't remember which, sometime in the1990s.
Since that first 77, I've owned a couple dozen of them and with one exception, they have been adequate shooters. I like the RSI style and have them in 243, 6MM Rem, 250-3000, 25 Souper, 257 Bob, 260, 6.5x55, 270, 7x57, 308, and 358. Although the RSIs will never have the balance and feel of a Husqvarna with a Mannlicher-style stock, they are as good or better than any of the Mannlicher-style stocked rifles cataloged by Mossberg, Remington, or Winchester.
The 77 always seems to come up in these type of discussions. Same dislikes and likes. Heavy, investment blah blah, Accurate enough, bad barrels, etc…. Working mans gun, accurate, sleepers, so on and so. Seems like everyone has had a bad one if you have had enough. I’ve only seen one that wouldn’t shoot. Compact mkII in 7mm-08 when I was younger.
I’ve owned enough to know a few tricks that might have tightened it up.
I’ll go ahead and post what I know up. Most folks will already know these but I think this is a good time to share. Isn’t that why we are here?
Stop reading here and PM me if your Ruger is a price of junk and you want to mail her to me because it’s a lost cause.
1. Torque the action screws in order. front lug screw gorilla tight, rear trigger guard monkey tight and middle just enough to hold it firm and allow the floor plate to latch without being rattly. 2. Relieve the box magazine contact points where the trigger guard and floor plate hinge meet. Should have the ability to move just freely and not bind when action it torqued. (See step 1) 3. Most Ruger triggers are adequate when it comes to weight and creep except the MKII. (Now notice I said adequate, no need to argue over it. There are better factory triggers) All have creep and over travel that will drive you crazy when compared to other triggers but can be corrected with trigger job or new trigger. The MKII needs some serious stone work to ease the weight and creep. (Maybe the root cause of a lot of inaccuracies). Easy enough for the novice with patience and directions found online. 4. I’ve never bedded or floated a Ruger so I cannot speak to that. Others can chime in on that front. 5. To reduce the weight. Stay away from the magnum contours and 25/06, buy a new lighter stock, or a set of dumbbells and bulk up a little. If a 7-9 lbs rifle knocks you out of the hunt maybe it’s time for a new hobby or life choices. Meant to be a joke. The magnum contoured barreled guns and 25-06 are tanks! 6. Sell them to me a severely discounted rate since, you know, the above issues.
My love for the Ruger 77 came from my first 2 and my uncle. A Stainless MKII 308. Given to me by my father in 2001 (my first bolt gun), a m77 tanger in 30-06 given to me by my father in law, and a 25-06 skeleton that I obsessed over ever since my uncle showed me his in the 90s. I still own all three, plus a Hawkeye Blue and laminate 264, and a stainless mkII 300 wsm.
Yep I love 77's, mostly since my first centerfire hunting rifle is a MkII stainless boat paddle 30-06 I got from a going out of business farm and ranch store in '95 for about $300.
Maybe for old times I'll throw her back in the boat paddle and load some ammo to 300 Savage speeds and whack some hogs at the campfire hog hunt.
The main thing to look out for with the original Model 77's is that they were made during Ruger's cheap barrel period, you could get a good one or it could be total crap.* Sometime around the 90's Ruger began producing their own barrels which were and still are good to very good.
All this IIRC.
You can also add to this the fact that many were prone to cracking the stock in the wrist area, just behind the tang. I have a .358 Win 77 tang safety that's gone thru 2 wood stocks. Next stock will be a composite - when/if I find one.
Did you bed both of them and relieve around the tang? I never shoot a Ruger 77 without bedding it first
First stock - No, box, stock factory gun. Second stock - Yes, bedded, area around the tang relieved and a cross-bolt put in between the recoil lug and mag well.
Mine shoots and functions great. Trigger was reworked by a gunsmith that was a self proclaimed “Ruger guy”. Breaks like glass at just under 3#s. My goal is to get it closer to 7 lbs rather than crowding 10 lbs. I’m thinking a new stock and less scope and mounts will get me right where I want to be. Even though mine has a B or magnum ish contour barrel it also has a .358 hole in it to make up the difference. I never had a Ruger be it a bolt or single shot that wouldn’t shoot. And that’s close to twenty that I’ve had so far.
OP, regarding "issues" with tang safety m77s, one could consider accuracy potential, or lack thereof. In the early years ruger used both Douglas and, I believe, Wilson barrels. The 1974 Tanger I owned shot fine and I have no idea who made the barrel. I've heard and read about poor quality wilson barrels, but have never met anyone who owned a m77 that couldn't make it shoot sufficiently for hunting.
....24hourcampfire, a great place for Alaskans to be schooled on what works and what doesnt.
This.
I'm tracking closely!
Mainer, snowflakes will try to getch your mind right no matter what. i was warned 6 months ago my sxs would be “hard” on “scopes”, even though I’ve been riding quads with rifles for over 30 years, and for a fact rode more miles in a year with a rifle on the front rack than the crybaby has rode in his life…. But, “he told me!!!”
Fuuckin place is actually amazing the do nothingness of the do nothing “read all about it crowd “!!! Haha
The best shooting Ruger I’ve had, I ordered new for a friend who was a merchant marine. I had a FFL then, 1977 or ‘78. It was a heavy barrel 280. The deer loads I loaded for him shot about 1/2” at 100 yards. His first day back was first day of deer season.
I have had a few Rugers since, 22-250, 7mm Rm, 44 Mag’s, Mini-14’s, 416 Rigby and others I probably forgot. I’ve worked with the 7mm RM (a tanger) the most, new trigger and aftermarket stock. It will shoot ~ 1 MOA with one load I’ve tried. I have not given up on Rugers as I am buying one on the fire now - a Ruger #1 in 280. But none have shot as well as that first 280. I just sold two Rugers, now I’m down to that 7mm RM and the future #1. I don’t know what to do with that 7mm. Thinking rebarreling to 358 Norma.
As far as which model bolt I like better, it’s pretty much a toss leaning to the tang safety model.
Hate the dinky little safety on the MK II / Hawkeye. Only had one but that was enough. Had a big fast jump between full safe and mid position, enough that it would get ahead of my thumb. Felt like it went all the way to fire. Missed a couple of quick shots because I just couldn’t get used to it. A bigger lever easier to maintain thumb contact with and I’d still have that 6 1/2 mm Sveed. In a perfect world Ruger would have gone to controlled feed and turned the tang safety into a 3 position. 2 positions with safe locking the bolt would be best but way too much to ask these days.
Tangers in 7x57 and .270 Wingay still live here and will stay in the family many years I hope.
The advent of CRF,integral scope bases and multiple triggers,in both single and two stage,along with the introduction of Stainless Steel,if only for starters. Hint.
The advent of CRF,integral scope bases and multiple triggers,in both single and two stage,along with the introduction of Stainless Steel,if only for starters. Hint.
Fhuqking LAUGHING!...........
Hey butthead integral bases were available and common on Tangers, he mentioned triggers and unlike you we don't all soak our rifles every time we catch a fish so stainless is not that big of a deal to us. CRF yes there is a tangible difference.
The advent of CRF,integral scope bases and multiple triggers,in both single and two stage,along with the introduction of Stainless Steel,if only for starters. Hint.
Fhuqking LAUGHING!...........
Hey butthead integral bases were available and common on Tangers, he mentioned triggers and unlike you we don't all soak our rifles every time we catch a fish so stainless is not that big of a deal to us. CRF yes there is a tangible difference.
The other major change was Ruger ending Wilson contract barrels and began producing their own hammer forged barrels shorty after the introduction of the MKII, around 1991 IIRC.
I know that, Larry. My question, again, is this: did you say or mean to imply that M77s prior to in introduction of the Hawkeye (AKA tangers) did not have integrated scope bases? Come on, Larry, let’s have an adult conversation without the name calling and childish gibberish. I know you can do it!
I know that, Larry. My question, again, is this: did you say or mean to imply that M77s prior to in introduction of the Hawkeye (AKA tangers) did not have integrated scope bases? Come on, Larry, let’s have an adult conversation without the name calling and childish gibberish. I know you can do it!
Adult conversation with Larry?
Any conversation with Larry that doesn't involve name calling and childish gibberish?
The advent of CRF,integral scope bases and multiple triggers,in both single and two stage,along with the introduction of Stainless Steel,if only for starters. Hint.
Fhuqking LAUGHING!...........
Hey butthead integral bases were available and common on Tangers, he mentioned triggers and unlike you we don't all soak our rifles every time we catch a fish so stainless is not that big of a deal to us. CRF yes there is a tangible difference.
How many action lengths did the tangers have? Was the action the same for a 6mm Remington and a 308 or was there a middle size action. I special ordered a tanger in HS with a round top because I didn't care for the Ruger rings. I wished later I had ordered it without sights but I was a kid and thought my iron sights would save the day if my scope died. I also wished I had ordered a 280 and not the 270 I went with.
Two action lengths. The 6mm was in the short action. The short action was out for some time before the long action. I can't remember how many years it was until they changed from the funny little bolt handle. Ruger fans, and there were a lot of them, often exaggerated the capabilities of the 77's. GD
Two action lengths. The 6mm was in the short action. The short action was out for some time before the long action. I can't remember how many years it was until they changed from the funny little bolt handle. Ruger fans, and there were a lot of them, often exaggerated the capabilities of the 77's. GD
Short action from late 1968 thru 1969, then long action introduced in 1970. Flatbolt SA up into 1973, and LA flatbolts from 1970 into 1973 with the rare transition hollowbolt thrown in. By 1974, its the now common roundbolt.
I remember that one could get a M77 tang safety in either round top or integral scope base top. I believe that was in the early 70s. I have a M77R tanger with the integral scope base in .280. After I bedded the action and floated the barrel it became a real good shooter. And, yes, when they first came out they were only available in a short action.
Oh, and Larry: It's clear that you have a severe problem in admitting when you are wrong. That's OK. I understand. 40 years ago, I had a 3 year old with the same problem. But, believe it or not, he got over it and is now doing fine. So just keep trying and we will try to help! I doubt that there is a plethora therapists in the Alaskan back woods, so you may have to rely on us!
What was supposed to be superior about the new safety the tang safety got replaced by? I can't imagine a more natural safety for a quick shot than the tanger. I bought a Browning A-bolt specifically to get a tang safety.
Two action lengths. The 6mm was in the short action. The short action was out for some time before the long action. I can't remember how many years it was until they changed from the funny little bolt handle. Ruger fans, and there were a lot of them, often exaggerated the capabilities of the 77's. GD
Short action from late 1968 thru 1969, then long action introduced in 1970. Flatbolt SA up into 1973, and LA flatbolts from 1970 into 1973 with the rare transition hollowbolt thrown in. By 1974, its the now common roundbolt.
I had a flat bolt in 284 Winchester which I bought in 1971. The long actions were available at that time but not common. I should have kept the 284. GD
I have a 6MM flat bolt with the Varmint barrel. It has the integral rings. I had a flat bolt in 30-06 once that had the round top and sights. I see the tang safeties from time to time with round tops. Usually 7MM Mags, 30-06, and 270’s. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a short action caliber with a round top though.
I have a 6MM flat bolt with the Varmint barrel. It has the integral rings. I had a flat bolt in 30-06 once that had the round top and sights. I see the tang safeties from time to time with round tops. Usually 7MM Mags, 30-06, and 270’s. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a short action caliber with a round top though.
I don't believe I have either. We sold truck loads of Rugers, back in the day, but very few were round tops. GD
Admit it. Larry. You are wrong! Ruger made tangers with integral scope mounts. I HAVE two, several other posters have confirmed this. You can do it, Larry. Just admit it! It will be cathatic, You'll feel better.
Admit it. Larry. You are wrong! Ruger made tangers with integral scope mounts. I HAVE two, several other posters have confirmed this. You can do it, Larry. Just admit it! It will be cathatic, You'll feel better.
He is a phu-king dimwit who will never admit he is wrong. Ruger came out with the 77 in 1968 and it had integral rings, they also offered at the same time the round top for people that could not stand the integral mounts. I had 3 tangers all with integral mounts, 7x57,7mm rem mag and a 30-06. I saw a few round tops in that time period.
I haven't read through these 14 pages. I'm sure there was plenty of argument, this being The Fire.
I have 5 M77s...all tangers.
77RL 257Rob 77RL 308 Win 77RL 260 Rem (barreled by McGowen) 77RSI 250 Sav 77V 220 Swift
Except for the 220 Swift, which I haven't shot in decades, they are all light weight, thin and short barreled hunting rifles. At that, they all shoot right at, or just under an inch. I couldn't/wouldn't ask for more from such a light hunter. The 260 Rem shoots under 1/2" often enough to keep me smiling.
Lots of folks don't care for the M77 for one reason or another. Mine do what they are designed to do, they do it well, and I'm quite satisfied with them.
I haven't read through these 14 pages. I'm sure there was plenty of argument, this being The Fire.
I have 5 M77s...all tangers.
77RL 257Rob 77RL 308 Win 77RL 260 Rem (barreled by McGowen) 77RSI 250 Sav 77V 220 Swift
Except for the 220 Swift, which I haven't shot in decades, they are all light weight, thin and short barreled hunting rifles. At that, they all shoot right at, or just under an inch. I couldn't/wouldn't ask for more from such a light hunter. The 260 Rem shoots under 1/2" often enough to keep me smiling.
Lots of folks don't care for the M77 for one reason or another. Mine do what they are designed to do, they do it well, and I'm quite satisfied with them.
I have a tanger that could be yours. 7mm RM with B&C stock and after market adjustable trigger.
I haven't read through these 14 pages. I'm sure there was plenty of argument, this being The Fire.
I have 5 M77s...all tangers.
77RL 257Rob 77RL 308 Win 77RL 260 Rem (barreled by McGowen) 77RSI 250 Sav 77V 220 Swift
Except for the 220 Swift, which I haven't shot in decades, they are all light weight, thin and short barreled hunting rifles. At that, they all shoot right at, or just under an inch. I couldn't/wouldn't ask for more from such a light hunter. The 260 Rem shoots under 1/2" often enough to keep me smiling.
Lots of folks don't care for the M77 for one reason or another. Mine do what they are designed to do, they do it well, and I'm quite satisfied with them.
I have a tanger that could be yours. 7mm RM with B&C stock and after market adjustable trigger.
Thanks, but no. I have a pretty long list, but that one's not on it.
The 77 always seems to come up in these type of discussions. Same dislikes and likes. Heavy, investment blah blah, Accurate enough, bad barrels, etc…. Working mans gun, accurate, sleepers, so on and so. Seems like everyone has had a bad one if you have had enough. I’ve only seen one that wouldn’t shoot. Compact mkII in 7mm-08 when I was younger.
I’ve owned enough to know a few tricks that might have tightened it up.
I’ll go ahead and post what I know up. Most folks will already know these but I think this is a good time to share. Isn’t that why we are here?
Stop reading here and PM me if your Ruger is a price of junk and you want to mail her to me because it’s a lost cause.
1. Torque the action screws in order. front lug screw gorilla tight, rear trigger guard monkey tight and middle just enough to hold it firm and allow the floor plate to latch without being rattly. 2. Relieve the box magazine contact points where the trigger guard and floor plate hinge meet. Should have the ability to move just freely and not bind when action it torqued. (See step 1) 3. Most Ruger triggers are adequate when it comes to weight and creep except the MKII. (Now notice I said adequate, no need to argue over it. There are better factory triggers) All have creep and over travel that will drive you crazy when compared to other triggers but can be corrected with trigger job or new trigger. The MKII needs some serious stone work to ease the weight and creep. (Maybe the root cause of a lot of inaccuracies). Easy enough for the novice with patience and directions found online. 4. I’ve never bedded or floated a Ruger so I cannot speak to that. Others can chime in on that front. 5. To reduce the weight. Stay away from the magnum contours and 25/06, buy a new lighter stock, or a set of dumbbells and bulk up a little. If a 7-9 lbs rifle knocks you out of the hunt maybe it’s time for a new hobby or life choices. Meant to be a joke. The magnum contoured barreled guns and 25-06 are tanks! 6. Sell them to me a severely discounted rate since, you know, the above issues.
My love for the Ruger 77 came from my first 2 and my uncle. A Stainless MKII 308. Given to me by my father in 2001 (my first bolt gun), a m77 tanger in 30-06 given to me by my father in law, and a 25-06 skeleton that I obsessed over ever since my uncle showed me his in the 90s. I still own all three, plus a Hawkeye Blue and laminate 264, and a stainless mkII 300 wsm.
Cheers all! And long live the Ruger M77!
Number 2 above was a big deal on my hawkeye.......and I appreciate the action screw torque recommendation. Really surprised the mag box fix hasn't been mentioned more during this now 14 page thread.
Typically it's a matter of trimming a smidgen off the mag well (box) to relieve any binding that occurs from tightening action screws. If the mag well can not move or rattle after stock screws are tight, then the mag well is putting pressure on the action and can cause erratic groups.
Filing a bit off the mag well box will relieve this pressure.
I was shooting nightmare groups during initial break in/new scope zero......switched scopes with a prove scope, no change. Found this tip on a ruger forum.. .....trimmed maybe 1/32 off the mag well pressure points....started getting MOA results immediately.
The 77 always seems to come up in these type of discussions. Same dislikes and likes. Heavy, investment blah blah, Accurate enough, bad barrels, etc…. Working mans gun, accurate, sleepers, so on and so. Seems like everyone has had a bad one if you have had enough. I’ve only seen one that wouldn’t shoot. Compact mkII in 7mm-08 when I was younger.
I’ve owned enough to know a few tricks that might have tightened it up.
I’ll go ahead and post what I know up. Most folks will already know these but I think this is a good time to share. Isn’t that why we are here?
Stop reading here and PM me if your Ruger is a price of junk and you want to mail her to me because it’s a lost cause.
1. Torque the action screws in order. front lug screw gorilla tight, rear trigger guard monkey tight and middle just enough to hold it firm and allow the floor plate to latch without being rattly. 2. Relieve the box magazine contact points where the trigger guard and floor plate hinge meet. Should have the ability to move just freely and not bind when action it torqued. (See step 1) 3. Most Ruger triggers are adequate when it comes to weight and creep except the MKII. (Now notice I said adequate, no need to argue over it. There are better factory triggers) All have creep and over travel that will drive you crazy when compared to other triggers but can be corrected with trigger job or new trigger. The MKII needs some serious stone work to ease the weight and creep. (Maybe the root cause of a lot of inaccuracies). Easy enough for the novice with patience and directions found online. 4. I’ve never bedded or floated a Ruger so I cannot speak to that. Others can chime in on that front. 5. To reduce the weight. Stay away from the magnum contours and 25/06, buy a new lighter stock, or a set of dumbbells and bulk up a little. If a 7-9 lbs rifle knocks you out of the hunt maybe it’s time for a new hobby or life choices. Meant to be a joke. The magnum contoured barreled guns and 25-06 are tanks! 6. Sell them to me a severely discounted rate since, you know, the above issues.
My love for the Ruger 77 came from my first 2 and my uncle. A Stainless MKII 308. Given to me by my father in 2001 (my first bolt gun), a m77 tanger in 30-06 given to me by my father in law, and a 25-06 skeleton that I obsessed over ever since my uncle showed me his in the 90s. I still own all three, plus a Hawkeye Blue and laminate 264, and a stainless mkII 300 wsm.
Cheers all! And long live the Ruger M77!
Number 2 above was a big deal on my hawkeye.......and I appreciate the action screw torque recommendation. Really surprised the mag box fix hasn't been mentioned more during this now 14 page thread.
You can do all work on a M77 as stated above and some won't group. The angle action screw can be touching the stock. I realized this years ago. Out of the box a 77 shot respectable groups then suddenly not. Lucky my Grandfather's best friend was a gunsmith/stock maker and he had a 77 react the same as mine and the topic was brought up at deer camp. He said pull the action/barrel out of the stock, take a 1/4 round file and gently relieve some wood so the action screw does not touch. Voila.
I have had 3 77's, all tangers. The first two were an early '70's 77V in .25-06 and a late '70's 77V in .220 Swift. I still have the Swift. Both were accurate rifles. The .25-06, with 4064 or 3031 would keep 75 grain Sierra HP's under 3/4" for 5 shots. The Swift, with the same powders, would keep 55 grain, pre-BT Noslers under a half inch (most of the time) for 5. I have, after a long hiatus, started playing with the Swift again. The third 77 I have is a 77R in 7mm RM. It's a mid '80's gun. It's not been in the same league, accuracy-wise, as the other two, but more than adequate for it's purpose which was always deer hunting. It will keep good bullets either side of an inch for 3. I've probably killed more deer with that than with any other individual rifle. It now resides with one of my sons out in Missouri.
The '70's 77's have bolts that lock down with the safety on, which I prefer. My 7mm RM has a bolt that doesn't lock down. I guess the change was made for safety reasons, but I don't like it.
The '70's 77's have bolts that lock down with the safety on, which I prefer. My 7mm RM has a bolt that doesn't lock down. I guess the change was made for safety reasons, but I don't like it.
Did it have a trigger job or a timney installed? This is the Mark II correct ? If so the safety selector pad was ground too far down, it should lock. Good luck with the repair, it involves sending it back to RUger who will undo the trigger job and replace the safety selector . Ask me how I know.
The '70's 77's have bolts that lock down with the safety on, which I prefer. My 7mm RM has a bolt that doesn't lock down. I guess the change was made for safety reasons, but I don't like it.
Did it have a trigger job or a timney installed? This is the Mark II correct ? If so the safety selector pad was ground too far down, it should lock. Good luck with the repair, it involves sending it back to RUger who will undo the trigger job and replace the safety selector . Ask me how I know.
Ruger 77 is the Timex watch of the rifle world.
It doesn't have a trigger job or an aftermarket trigger. It's not a Mark II. In 1984 Ruger started making the tang-safety 77 so the safety no longer locked down the bolt handle when engaged.
The '70's 77's have bolts that lock down with the safety on, which I prefer. My 7mm RM has a bolt that doesn't lock down. I guess the change was made for safety reasons, but I don't like it.
Did it have a trigger job or a timney installed? This is the Mark II correct ? If so the safety selector pad was ground too far down, it should lock. Good luck with the repair, it involves sending it back to RUger who will undo the trigger job and replace the safety selector . Ask me how I know.
Ruger 77 is the Timex watch of the rifle world.
It doesn't have a trigger job or an aftermarket trigger. It's not a Mark II. In 1984 Ruger started making the tang-safety 77 so the safety no longer locked down the bolt handle when engaged.
Yeah that makes no sense unless their lawyers saw what was happening to Remington triggers.
The Ruger had much the same issue as the Remington; it had a fully adjustable trigger which could be adjusted too light and the safety had to be off to unload the rifle. Rugers had fired on safety release too and they wanted to get ahead of it. GD
The Ruger had much the same issue as the Remington; it had a fully adjustable trigger which could be adjusted too light and the safety had to be off to unload the rifle. Rugers had fired on safety release too and they wanted to get ahead of it. GD
I have been enjoying this thread as Ruger tang safety’s are a favorite of mine. I have had a few and some I wish I hadn’t sold like a lot of folks on here. The 2 I have now, a round top .30-06 and a .200 Swift varmint, are very accurate and work fine. The 06 is as it came from the factory, almost. 😎 The .220 swift has a Canjar single set trigger and some bedding work. Have had them both for many years and it would be hard to part with either of them. Are they light, no. Did they cost a lot, no. Do they have the latest plastic stock, again, no. But they work and what more could you ask from any rifle, no matter what the price or pedigree. Sorry for the doe picture , I have shot a couple of small 8pts with it, but I am a meat hunter first. Also not very good. 😂
A new one for me that I fine tuned: Painted the factory stock and installed a red pachmayr, as well as worked the trigger down to a crisp clean safe 2.5 pounds. This rifle was made for one year (2004).
300RSAUM:
Shooting some 165 TTSX: Avg velocity of that load is 3,031 fps. Not too bad for a 22" barreled little short mag. Here's a couple groups I shot at 400 yards, when I was messing around with load development:
I'm really liking this rifle. Its one of my favorite purchases in the last few months. I like it more than a couple Winchester model 70 rifles I recently purchased. Its just a nice light rifle in a very useable package. Really hard not to like something like that. The performance level is also very surprising to me, as it is a puzzy cat to shoot but keeps up with my 300WSM's and other bigger 30 cal magnums. This is the kind of rifle that a guy could hunt the rest of his life with and have no regrets..
Originally Posted by DrDeath
Did Ruger ever make a M77 in a bull barrel? Over 22 inches?
Reportedly five M77V 30-06 were made. SN range 770-272xx, 1984. The "V" in the M77 from '68 - 1992 was noted as a Varmint heavy bull barrel, no length mentioned.
My Ruger info is only up until 2010. Not familiar with the recent models.
A new one for me that I fine tuned: Painted the factory stock and installed a red pachmayr, as well as worked the trigger down to a crisp clean safe 2.5 pounds. This rifle was made for one year (2004).
300RSAUM:
Shooting some 165 TTSX: Avg velocity of that load is 3,031 fps. Not too bad for a 22" barreled little short mag. Here's a couple groups I shot at 400 yards, when I was messing around with load development:
I'm really liking this rifle. Its one of my favorite purchases in the last few months. I like it more than a couple Winchester model 70 rifles I recently purchased. Its just a nice light rifle in a very useable package. Really hard not to like something like that. The performance level is also very surprising to me, as it is a puzzy cat to shoot but keeps up with my 300WSM's and other bigger 30 cal magnums. This is the kind of rifle that a guy could hunt the rest of his life with and have no regrets..
Originally Posted by DrDeath
Did Ruger ever make a M77 in a bull barrel? Over 22 inches?
A new one for me that I fine tuned: Painted the factory stock and installed a red pachmayr, as well as worked the trigger down to a crisp clean safe 2.5 pounds. This rifle was made for one year (2004).
300RSAUM:
Shooting some 165 TTSX: Avg velocity of that load is 3,031 fps. Not too bad for a 22" barreled little short mag. Here's a couple groups I shot at 400 yards, when I was messing around with load development:
I'm really liking this rifle. Its one of my favorite purchases in the last few months. I like it more than a couple Winchester model 70 rifles I recently purchased. Its just a nice light rifle in a very useable package. Really hard not to like something like that. The performance level is also very surprising to me, as it is a puzzy cat to shoot but keeps up with my 300WSM's and other bigger 30 cal magnums. This is the kind of rifle that a guy could hunt the rest of his life with and have no regrets..
Originally Posted by DrDeath
Did Ruger ever make a M77 in a bull barrel? Over 22 inches?
I love this very informative thread.
I could get behind a little 300 like that.
I need to get behind it more and do a little more testing Scotty. That damn lightweight 300wby gives me a headache!!! ha ha.. What I was thinking about the other day is I'm slinging 178's and 175's in the WBY at roughly 3,200 fps and this little cute 300RSAUM is flinging the 165's at 3,030 fps avg.. That's not really a bunch of performance lost, but in a smaller package. I'm not going to say lighter because I think both of my 300wby's weighs about the same with the same/similar scope. But this Ruger doesn't rattle the noggin as much. Great little rifle. Too bad they didn't make more!!!
I've had about 5 total, all in Mark ll's. I'm down to one now. It started life as a .280 Rem, barrel was junk, by the time I got it to shoot the way I wanted I could have bought 2 Remington's, but loved the wood stock so couldn't send it down the road.
They are basically a hunting rifle and that's it. I'm pretty sure no one has won a bench rest match with one, and I don't think anyone has won at Camp Perry with one. I've heard Jack Hill (Sierra bullet guy, one of the J's in J4 bullet jackets) that Bill Ruger gave John Buhmiller a 77 action and told him to build a shooter on it. Later Buhmiller gave it back to Ruger and told him that you have to start with something first.
I've had about 5 total, all in Mark ll's. I'm down to one now. It started life as a .280 Rem, barrel was junk, by the time I got it to shoot the way I wanted I could have bought 2 Remington's, but loved the wood stock so couldn't send it down the road.
They are basically a hunting rifle and that's it. I'm pretty sure no one has won a bench rest match with one, and I don't think anyone has won at Camp Perry with one. I've heard Jack Hill (Sierra bullet guy, one of the J's in J4 bullet jackets) that Bill Ruger gave John Buhmiller a 77 action and told him to build a shooter on it. Later Buhmiller gave it back to Ruger and told him that you have to start with something first.
No one said they were a benchrest or camp perry rifle. They do shoot well enough for what they are: A hunting rifle. Like a good Winchester model 70. They are hunting rifles and serve you very well. To get them to shoot acceptably well, you have to be willing to tinker a bit and be knowledgeable of the system. They can be fine tuned very well and most have great barrels, so you can wring them out quite a bit. I've had many that shot 1/2" or better groups, but after many trick moves and that was with factory barrels. If the idiot that you speak of couldn't get a Ruger m77 to shoot well, that is on his incompetence. Not the rifles. Just fu cking saying..
I used this 338wm for years. It was my "go to" for elk hunting. Not just because it shot so well. It was extremely dependable. There is a reason someone started this thread, titled "Ruger M77's". Some guys actually like them and appreciate them for what they are. Some guys cry and make excuses for what they are not or what they can't make them..
bsa1917hunter, Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, but your statement the 77 like the Winchester 70 is a good hunting rifle and that's all. I'm pretty sure that David Tubb won Perry a few times with a Winchester 70. I'm pretty much down to one hunting rifle now and it's the above 77, so if I came across as bashing the 77, that was not my intent.
bsa1917hunter, Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, but your statement the 77 like the Winchester 70 is a good hunting rifle and that's all. I'm pretty sure that David Tubb won Perry a few times with a Winchester 70. I'm pretty much down to one hunting rifle now and it's the above 77, so if I came across as bashing the 77, that was not my intent.
No problem. One thing the 77 can handle is a little bashing. I've always said they are a diamond in the rough. Some guys don't like them because of that. Others can fine tune them and make them a bit more. All my Rugers function more like a well oiled machine or Model 70 esque, but the Ruger is what it is: A mass produced cast investment Receiver, which some do not like. They are very robust though in my experience. When most of us are searching for a really accurate rifle, the Ruger m77 is generally not what we think of. Some I've had were tack drivers, but it took a lot of work. I take them for what they are though, and I'm willing to make them better...
bsa1917hunter, Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, but your statement the 77 like the Winchester 70 is a good hunting rifle and that's all. I'm pretty sure that David Tubb won Perry a few times with a Winchester 70. I'm pretty much down to one hunting rifle now and it's the above 77, so if I came across as bashing the 77, that was not my intent.
bsa1917hunter, Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, but your statement the 77 like the Winchester 70 is a good hunting rifle and that's all. I'm pretty sure that David Tubb won Perry a few times with a Winchester 70. I'm pretty much down to one hunting rifle now and it's the above 77, so if I came across as bashing the 77, that was not my intent.
You are awfully jealous aren't you and a piece of schit (POS). Why don't you go back to cooking your crack. You add nothing to any thread here. You shoot rocks and drugs..
You are awfully jealous aren't you and a piece of schit (POS). Why don't you go back to cooking your crack. You add nothing to any thread here. You shoot rocks and drugs..
I've had about 5 total, all in Mark ll's. I'm down to one now. It started life as a .280 Rem, barrel was junk, by the time I got it to shoot the way I wanted I could have bought 2 Remington's, but loved the wood stock so couldn't send it down the road.
They are basically a hunting rifle and that's it. I'm pretty sure no one has won a bench rest match with one, and I don't think anyone has won at Camp Perry with one. I've heard Jack Hill (Sierra bullet guy, one of the J's in J4 bullet jackets) that Bill Ruger gave John Buhmiller a 77 action and told him to build a shooter on it. Later Buhmiller gave it back to Ruger and told him that you have to start with something first.
I've had at least 20 Rugers - tang safeties, MKII's and Hawkeye's. For sure they are hit and miss accuracy-wise (especially the tangers), but they are good, basic hunting rifles. Really, the MKII and Hawkeye are among the simplest, most reliable hard-condition actions ever made. If I lived in the bush and had to put meat on the table in awful conditions the MKII action would be right at the top of my list, followed by the M70. The biggest gripe I have with them is the roughness and clunkiness of the cast action. But that's just a minor nit-pick. We're talking here about hunting rifles, not match rifles. Any smith worth his salt can screw on a barrel and get a Ruger action shooting. One of the most accurate rifles I've ever used was an early Stainless MKII (before they made it CRF). In the 90's a friend had Mark Brown turn one it into a 257 WBY. That thing shot the original 100 grain Barnes X's into the .3's, and the original Barnes X was about the worst shooting bullet around!
Lol if Ruger doesn't give a damn about making their rifles accurate, I sure as hell am not going to spend a bunch of time and money on it either.
Not when I can buy any of twenty other brands and slap a scope on them and go sub moa.
But I do appreciate the looks and design and classic lines of Ruger 77s. Too bad they always disappointed me.
The MKII's I had were consistently better shooters than the tang safety M77's. Some were quite accurate I'd not hesitate to pick up a MKII or Hawkeye and expect to get reasonable accuracy out of it.
bsa1917hunter, Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, but your statement the 77 like the Winchester 70 is a good hunting rifle and that's all. I'm pretty sure that David Tubb won Perry a few times with a Winchester 70. I'm pretty much down to one hunting rifle now and it's the above 77, so if I came across as bashing the 77, that was not my intent.
You are awfully jealous aren't you and a piece of schit (POS). Why don't you go back to cooking your crack. You add nothing to any thread here. You shoot rocks and drugs..
Lol if Ruger doesn't give a damn about making their rifles accurate, I sure as hell am not going to spend a bunch of time and money on it either.
Not when I can buy any of twenty other brands and slap a scope on them and go sub moa.
But I do appreciate the looks and design and classic lines of Ruger 77s. Too bad they always disappointed me.
The MKII's I had were consistently better shooters than the tang safety M77's. Some were quite accurate I'd not hesitate to pick up a MKII or Hawkeye and expect to get reasonable accuracy out of it.
Fair enough. I have not tried the Hawkeyes. The mkII's I went oh for three and quit.
Lol if Ruger doesn't give a damn about making their rifles accurate, I sure as hell am not going to spend a bunch of time and money on it either.
Not when I can buy any of twenty other brands and slap a scope on them and go sub moa.
But I do appreciate the looks and design and classic lines of Ruger 77s. Too bad they always disappointed me.
Ruger M77 tang safety
Mule Deer: " I've owned a pile of 77's of all eras. While one barrel truly sucked (a 7x57 with a bore that had numerous loose spots, with the tight spots measuring .287), all the others shot anywhere from acceptably to very well. My acceptable rating is three shots in an inch for big game rifles, and five shots in an inch for varmint rifles, and very well is half that. Most of them required some work on the bedding and trigger, but then a lot of factory rifles do." "My experience has been that bad barrels on tang-safety Rugers were extremely rare, and were scattered randomly throughout the years."
Boxer - Big Stick: "I've Ruger familiarity and accept them for what they are. Light or bullet proof they are not, though curiously enough they are oft maligned by the masses for "accuracy" woe which I've yet to see, though of course I shoot a bit, which tend to tip numerous scales."
The MKII's I had were consistently better shooters than the tang safety M77's.
A while back a friend of mine picked up a lightly used MkII in 308 Winchester. The trigger pull was actually pretty nice, but I don't know if the original owner had worked on it. I provided a loaner scope for my friend and proceeded to mount it up. Well, let's just say it took quite a bit of elbow grease to lap those ring holes into alignment. Once done the scope tracked just fine and the rifle turned out to be a good shooter. The barrel didn't foul and didn't need babying to keep shooting.
I wish one of us still had it. We both went through a lean patch, and he sold it when I didn't have the loose change to take it on myself.
Lol if Ruger doesn't give a damn about making their rifles accurate, I sure as hell am not going to spend a bunch of time and money on it either.
Not when I can buy any of twenty other brands and slap a scope on them and go sub moa.
But I do appreciate the looks and design and classic lines of Ruger 77s. Too bad they always disappointed me.
Ruger M77 tang safety
Mule Deer: " I've owned a pile of 77's of all eras. While one barrel truly sucked (a 7x57 with a bore that had numerous loose spots, with the tight spots measuring .287), all the others shot anywhere from acceptably to very well. My acceptable rating is three shots in an inch for big game rifles, and five shots in an inch for varmint rifles, and very well is half that. Most of them required some work on the bedding and trigger, but then a lot of factory rifles do." "My experience has been that bad barrels on tang-safety Rugers were extremely rare, and were scattered randomly throughout the years."
Boxer - Big Stick: "I've Ruger familiarity and accept them for what they are. Light or bullet proof they are not, though curiously enough they are oft maligned by the masses for "accuracy" woe which I've yet to see, though of course I shoot a bit, which tend to tip numerous scales."
And both of their opinions are worth what you paid for them. It does not change the fact that I had several which were very inaccurate.
Which brings me to wonder why you think you need to tell me their opinion, as if they might reward you or it might change the reality I experienced?
Ruger changed their safetys from the original model 77’s with a Tang safety to the later years with a three position rear bolt safety. The actions look basically the same (not sure ). So were there any issues with the tang safetys that Ruger switched? Or are both types GTG?
I had a tang safety .30-06 , a "round top" with iron sights. I only had one problem with it. The safety made a bit of noise when it was taken off, even if I kept pressure on it like I do with my Model 70's.
I finally cut 1/2 a coil off the spring. It helped but didn't cure it. I did like the adjustable trigger.
It wasn't quite as accurate as my .223 All Weather UL and my GSR but good enough.
I sold it to my brother-in-law to buy a pre-war M70. He was still using it when he died a couple of years ago.
Lol if Ruger doesn't give a damn about making their rifles accurate, I sure as hell am not going to spend a bunch of time and money on it either.
Not when I can buy any of twenty other brands and slap a scope on them and go sub moa.
But I do appreciate the looks and design and classic lines of Ruger 77s. Too bad they always disappointed me.
Ruger M77 tang safety
Mule Deer: " I've owned a pile of 77's of all eras. While one barrel truly sucked (a 7x57 with a bore that had numerous loose spots, with the tight spots measuring .287), all the others shot anywhere from acceptably to very well. My acceptable rating is three shots in an inch for big game rifles, and five shots in an inch for varmint rifles, and very well is half that. Most of them required some work on the bedding and trigger, but then a lot of factory rifles do." "My experience has been that bad barrels on tang-safety Rugers were extremely rare, and were scattered randomly throughout the years."
Boxer - Big Stick: "I've Ruger familiarity and accept them for what they are. Light or bullet proof they are not, though curiously enough they are oft maligned by the masses for "accuracy" woe which I've yet to see, though of course I shoot a bit, which tend to tip numerous scales."
And both of their opinions are worth what you paid for them. It does not change the fact that I had several which were very inaccurate.
Which brings me to wonder why you think you need to tell me their opinion, as if they might reward you or it might change the reality I experienced?
If you had several that were inaccurate that is a red flag that suggests operator error.
Lol if Ruger doesn't give a damn about making their rifles accurate, I sure as hell am not going to spend a bunch of time and money on it either.
Not when I can buy any of twenty other brands and slap a scope on them and go sub moa.
But I do appreciate the looks and design and classic lines of Ruger 77s. Too bad they always disappointed me.
Ruger M77 tang safety
Mule Deer: " I've owned a pile of 77's of all eras. While one barrel truly sucked (a 7x57 with a bore that had numerous loose spots, with the tight spots measuring .287), all the others shot anywhere from acceptably to very well. My acceptable rating is three shots in an inch for big game rifles, and five shots in an inch for varmint rifles, and very well is half that. Most of them required some work on the bedding and trigger, but then a lot of factory rifles do." "My experience has been that bad barrels on tang-safety Rugers were extremely rare, and were scattered randomly throughout the years."
Boxer - Big Stick: "I've Ruger familiarity and accept them for what they are. Light or bullet proof they are not, though curiously enough they are oft maligned by the masses for "accuracy" woe which I've yet to see, though of course I shoot a bit, which tend to tip numerous scales."
And both of their opinions are worth what you paid for them. It does not change the fact that I had several which were very inaccurate.
Which brings me to wonder why you think you need to tell me their opinion, as if they might reward you or it might change the reality I experienced?
If you had several that were inaccurate that is a red flag that suggests operator error.
Lol if Ruger doesn't give a damn about making their rifles accurate, I sure as hell am not going to spend a bunch of time and money on it either.
Not when I can buy any of twenty other brands and slap a scope on them and go sub moa.
But I do appreciate the looks and design and classic lines of Ruger 77s. Too bad they always disappointed me.
Ruger M77 tang safety
Mule Deer: " I've owned a pile of 77's of all eras. While one barrel truly sucked (a 7x57 with a bore that had numerous loose spots, with the tight spots measuring .287), all the others shot anywhere from acceptably to very well. My acceptable rating is three shots in an inch for big game rifles, and five shots in an inch for varmint rifles, and very well is half that. Most of them required some work on the bedding and trigger, but then a lot of factory rifles do." "My experience has been that bad barrels on tang-safety Rugers were extremely rare, and were scattered randomly throughout the years."
Boxer - Big Stick: "I've Ruger familiarity and accept them for what they are. Light or bullet proof they are not, though curiously enough they are oft maligned by the masses for "accuracy" woe which I've yet to see, though of course I shoot a bit, which tend to tip numerous scales."
And both of their opinions are worth what you paid for them. It does not change the fact that I had several which were very inaccurate.
Which brings me to wonder why you think you need to tell me their opinion, as if they might reward you or it might change the reality I experienced?
If you had several that were inaccurate that is a red flag that suggests operator error.
Well the other ten brands I use and own are fine.
you are the most unlucky Ruger 77 owner I have come across todate.
Lol if Ruger doesn't give a damn about making their rifles accurate, I sure as hell am not going to spend a bunch of time and money on it either.
Not when I can buy any of twenty other brands and slap a scope on them and go sub moa.
But I do appreciate the looks and design and classic lines of Ruger 77s. Too bad they always disappointed me.
Ruger M77 tang safety
Mule Deer: " I've owned a pile of 77's of all eras. While one barrel truly sucked (a 7x57 with a bore that had numerous loose spots, with the tight spots measuring .287), all the others shot anywhere from acceptably to very well. My acceptable rating is three shots in an inch for big game rifles, and five shots in an inch for varmint rifles, and very well is half that. Most of them required some work on the bedding and trigger, but then a lot of factory rifles do." "My experience has been that bad barrels on tang-safety Rugers were extremely rare, and were scattered randomly throughout the years."
Boxer - Big Stick: "I've Ruger familiarity and accept them for what they are. Light or bullet proof they are not, though curiously enough they are oft maligned by the masses for "accuracy" woe which I've yet to see, though of course I shoot a bit, which tend to tip numerous scales."
And both of their opinions are worth what you paid for them. It does not change the fact that I had several which were very inaccurate.
Which brings me to wonder why you think you need to tell me their opinion, as if they might reward you or it might change the reality I experienced?
If you had several that were inaccurate that is a red flag that suggests operator error.
Well the other ten brands I use and own are fine.
you are the most unlucky Ruger 77 owner I have come across todate.
Yep. I have different experience than your small sample size so I must be a liar and a bad shot.
Lol if Ruger doesn't give a damn about making their rifles accurate, I sure as hell am not going to spend a bunch of time and money on it either.
Not when I can buy any of twenty other brands and slap a scope on them and go sub moa.
But I do appreciate the looks and design and classic lines of Ruger 77s. Too bad they always disappointed me.
Ruger M77 tang safety
Mule Deer: " I've owned a pile of 77's of all eras. While one barrel truly sucked (a 7x57 with a bore that had numerous loose spots, with the tight spots measuring .287), all the others shot anywhere from acceptably to very well. My acceptable rating is three shots in an inch for big game rifles, and five shots in an inch for varmint rifles, and very well is half that. Most of them required some work on the bedding and trigger, but then a lot of factory rifles do." "My experience has been that bad barrels on tang-safety Rugers were extremely rare, and were scattered randomly throughout the years."
Boxer - Big Stick: "I've Ruger familiarity and accept them for what they are. Light or bullet proof they are not, though curiously enough they are oft maligned by the masses for "accuracy" woe which I've yet to see, though of course I shoot a bit, which tend to tip numerous scales."
And both of their opinions are worth what you paid for them. It does not change the fact that I had several which were very inaccurate.
Which brings me to wonder why you think you need to tell me their opinion, as if they might reward you or it might change the reality I experienced?
If you had several that were inaccurate that is a red flag that suggests operator error.
Well the other ten brands I use and own are fine.
you are the most unlucky Ruger 77 owner I have come across todate.
Yep. I have different experience than your small sample size so I must be a liar and a bad shot.
You said it, not me.
For awhile I had a small cottage industry going buying and selling Ruger 77s. Rumors spread that 77s had bad barrels and they are not accurate. So when Tom, Dick and Harry learned of this they thru up their arms when their 77s would not shoot and they traded or sold them off. I bought a lot of those piece of schidt 77s and checked them out. Some did not like certain factory ammo, but liked other brand factory ammo. Some shot great after several rounds down the barrel, some shot better with a clean barrel. Some were purchased with mounted scopes and when replaced with a scope with a good track record, shot like a house of fire. Others shot respectable groups after a simple tweaks. I only sent two rifles to Ruger for service. One came back with a new barrel and the other was re-crowned. Every rifle I sold, the new owner was advised of what correction if any was done and I would buy it back if they were not satisfied. No one returned a rifle.
If you want to spend your time polishing turds go ahead. I would rather mount a scope and shoot sub moa like my Remingtons and Mausers and husky and marlin and savages and Weatherby rifles do.
I've owned one Ruger tanger. An RSI in 308 with the full stock made in 1986. I took it to the range for the initial sight-in session and the trigger locked up and I couldn't get the first round off. Took it back to the previous owner and we did alot fiddling and adjusting and we thought we had it fixed. Went back to the range and I managed to get three rounds fired, and same thing. Trigger locked up. Called Ruger and they sent a replacement allen set screw for the front trigger adjustment screw, but we couldn't use it because of a small head on the screw and it wouldn't fit my gun. We also placed a WTB ad here on the fire for a replacement M77 tanger trigger. We found one and paid the shipping. I believe that was all that was requested. I installed the different trigger group and it functioned perfectly. And then a buddy came along looking for a good bolt gun in 308. He is now the proud owner, and I hope he doesn't experience anything like what I experienced.
If anyone wants a used M77 tanger trigger I have one...someday when I get a round tuit that thing is going in the trash. Hopefully no one else will ever get it.
If you want to spend your time polishing turds go ahead. I would rather mount a scope and shoot sub moa like my Remingtons and Mausers and husky and marlin and savages and Weatherby rifles do.
And...what exactly is a "house of fire?" Lol
It is an expression or in this case 5/8" at 100 yards made by an old piece of schidt 77 7x57.
You said you had several 77s that were very inaccurate. I would think that after a couple you would not own anymore.
I have a Ruger 30/06 that wouldn't group less than 2" with any factory ammo. And one of my two Ruger #1's weren't much better. Still have the 30/06 and a 6mm #1 both have acceptable hunting accuracy. I bought a Sako .243 in 1981 and figured out what a rifle was supposed to be.
You had several Ruger 77s and they were all inaccurate. You should be embarrassed that you did not have the ability to at least make one shoot accurately.
I've been a victim of the mediocre at best 77s. It kind of spoils you on buying anymore even though they may have worked out issues. Often said that cheap Ruger Americans out shoot the expensive 77... Maybe I should try another new version it takes a while to get the taste out of your mouth
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/kGGKFf6P/IMG-20210907-142416-679.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/ncY9jyw9/IMG-20210907-142451-133.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/tRds3BzR/0224211347a-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/SRHrztv3/QJmIPWm.jpg)
.. smirk![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/Juh84Yl.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/3Bg0ihd.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/s2LtH4N.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/LsCf566k/IMG-20210911-110725-939.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/ZCxhRq80/IMG-20210906-084543.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/nARQvsJ.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/TonXJmV.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/A71j7aM.jpg)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ww233/beretzs/IMG_1527.JPG)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/OeX1eHfh.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/RXxPoXIh.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/pXPfWVFj/IMG_6233_zpsace9846c.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/DRfehKj.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/SxcC3Cqh/Screenshot-20210923-112746.png)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/s2P4m5Gj/20160914-203113.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/wjPhcDCp/thumbnail-4.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/pXRkpYHc/thumbnail-3.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/4xMMoEi.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/GAp9F46.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/Hy0EvUU.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/m2L6SwdV/Screenshot-20211127-210634-Chrome.jpg)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/ww235/JohnnyLimbo/.highres/IMG_1602_zps2frabi0i.jpg)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/ww235/JohnnyLimbo/.highres/DSC00212_zpso8tp2nt0.jpg)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/ww235/JohnnyLimbo/012_zpsio8qolfh.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/wTS3Wmmq/A80-AB689-914-D-4-A3-E-AF9-D-B98414-F69898.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/SRQjRtG7/516-CB87-A-8-EDC-42-B4-AC6-E-6-B902029-CDD2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/9FnzXbwZ/9-CBAF67-B-89-BE-4-FC6-9-CB9-2818-CF4-F2-BFB.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/gkJnPQjG/F04-B3509-31-D8-4123-8-A28-8938-E8-FF1-E73.jpg)
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1280x1024q90/923/Mg5Oar.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/T30V7U1.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/g0GvTF0p/24-C510-AE-566-B-4506-BD0-C-0-D704-C255266.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/XJzdqrkN/BCFE1499-7-E07-47-C0-B2-DD-211-E1-E438023.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/AyRrysj.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/NEf36dx.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/E1fHid4.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/8SWpPyg.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/2C5BQ7b.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/KxaY5qe.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/d8zj0jn.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/SrLseYL.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/Pi5vi52.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/8zhVbnCd/DSC02336.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/7hgpN5HH/DSC02340.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/Z6nSGfF.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/Ai2q9Z2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/sRXatpD.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/hvcRYFG0/Resized-20220925-142305.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/HsVnT5z1/Resized-20220925-142305.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/88EcVNL.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/jrjXGMl.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/h1OSlH3.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/Otzlw9w.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/FmCy1UM.jpg)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ww233/beretzs/IMG_1878.JPG)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ww233/beretzs/33EFBA08_74F3_4FF5_A91F_4A47F2D7AE28_61896341930_29B86007_9BDB_41D4_8A2B_A923D1AB6555.JPG)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ww233/beretzs/68CAC93B_EE1A_4BEE_AB3D_593C92794AD9_61412575316_5A5911D6_9158_4097_8958_95641A871AEB.JPG)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ww233/beretzs/IMG_1898.JPG)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ww233/beretzs/322D2D08-C090-42F1-83B0-3709563F622E.jpeg)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ww233/beretzs/C0189F10-25E3-4465-B369-BE9EF1106CCE.jpeg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/a1T0xHv.jpg)