I've come across the claim that 'poor' design of the model 77 receivers is one the the reasons they are not used as a competative bench rest rifle.



Or for that matter chosen by any agency for use as a tactical rifle.



http://www.snipercountry.com/hottips/RugerM77.htm

Quote;

if you took a Ruger and redesigned the action a bit.



For CONSISTENT precision shooting and sniping, the ruger isn't top choice.



Now if you guys are happy with your Rugers so be it but please don't posion the minds of the unexpecting with your fantasies of a great Ruger Target rifle. Ruger was designed to be a great gun for the average hunter!



How much truth is there to these claims?

Any thought apreciated.

The Rem 700 is the "Chevy truck" of rifles because of all of the after market parts available and it's is one of the least expensive to get to shoot very accurately if not the the least expensive. Rugers are difficult to bed and inlet for compared to most other rifles. Push feed actions are supposed to have an accuracy edge on cotrolled feed actions

Blanket statements are usually made by the brave or misinformed. Sure as someone mentions that a certain rifle isn't capable of a certain degree of accuracy he/she is destined to be proven otherwise.

I can't speak to the efficiency of the overall action design, but I do believe the argument against the angled-action screw is a red herring. The purpose of bedding an action is to ensure consistency of contact, and there are several ways to accomplish that, including epoxy.

Another way is with an angled action screw without epoxy. Rather than pulling the stock and action into approximate contact, based upon inletting plans, the angled screw pulls the stock and the action into tight contact. It's an elegant engineering solution, IMO.

Customer demand is a funny thing. I was exploring rebarreling my old push feed tang safety M77 from its present very inaccurate state and discovered that some barrel makers don't keep jigs and tooling to square that action when installing their barrels. I don't know if that means it's been tried and found not to work or to work more expensively than the same work for a Rem M700.

I do know I got some scary-accurate groups from my now-sold M77 MkII (CRF), but that was on the basis of my expectations for a hunting rifle, not a target rifle.

Jaywalker

I don�t know what the original author means by �poor� design. The Rugers are widely regarded as very strong receivers and Ruger�s the investment cast manufacturing process is superior to hot forging in my opinion. It is true that Mr. Ruger had the attitude of �not one penny� for features which didn�t add function, so you don�t find black end caps on the fore stocks, etc., which keeps costs down and helps make the Rugers more affordable to the end consumer. Forgetting the trigger for a moment, the Ruger M77�s and newer M77 MKII�s are excellent firearms.



I don�t know what Ruger quality was like back in the 60�s but one reason Remingtons are favored by tactical organizations is the large number of accessories available for the M700 and, dare I say it, choosing Remington is a �safe� choice � everyone else is doing it so it can�t be bad, right? (You see this same attitude in the computer industry when a company buys IBM when better alternatives exist � the attitude is summarized by �No one ever got fired for buying IBM�.)



Frankly, though, I don�t give a rat�s ash what the naysayers think. Let my give you some experience from my 20+ year relationship with Rugers:

1. M77 7mm Mag, bought new in 1981: Always shot 0.5� groups, but shot a 0.266� group with a new load a couple weeks ago.
2. M77 .257 Roberts made in 1989, bought used last January: 200 yard group of 0.95�.
3. M77 MKII VT .22-250, new last Christmas: Stainless, laminated Varmint Target with target trigger, 200 yard group of 0.50� for 4 shots.
4. M77 .22-250 heavy barrel (my brother�s), bought new 20 years ago: prairie dogs at 400 yards are in trouble, 300 yards and they don�t have a chance.
5. M77 7mm Mag, my hunting buddy�s, bought new 4 years ago: 0.4� groups at 100 yards.

The older M77s had an adjustable trigger, the newer MKII�s do not (although the target trigger on my .22-250 VT was excellent right out of the box, don�t even know if it is adjustable). They are very easy to work on, however, and aftermarket options exist just as they do for the Remingtons preferred by the tactical guys.



The Rugers have what I consider to be the best scope mounting system available. The scope bases are milled into the receiver rather than being held in place by itty-bitty screws. Nice when you are in the woods, fall off a mule, and break two ribs after landing with your rifle between you and a log. (Don�t ask.)



Needless to say, the next bolt gun I buy will be another Ruger.

amen Coyote_Hunter
tom

Actually those claims are pretty much true over all. For brenchrest shooting, tell me about .200"groups CONSISTANTLY,at 100 and 200 yards. Tell me about a ruger that will AGG even in the low .3's. I won't hold my breath.
If you are looking for REAL accuracy, Ruger is not the place to start. and then there is ruger's politics,,,

They say that Ruger receivers by their design are not as rigid as the 700's
and that additional flex is what inherently makes for less [/i] consistant[/i] accuracy.

I've got a couple of M77's, a .22 and a .308 and I'm very happy with their accuracy,but they are field rifles.

Thats why I was curious to see if a Ruger M77 can be made to achieve a competition benchrest level of accuracy?

I agree it is a great design but it isn't as quick and easy to inlet and bed according to two gunsmith's I've actually talked to about it. They like the design too. I have a MKII with the "canoe paddle" stock. The stock is UGLY but very functional. The older M77 rifles had accuracy problems due more to bad barrels than any other reason. Ruger started making their own barrels to correct the problem. When going for the best accuracy of almost any mass produced action, truing the action is one of the steps usually done. IMHO much of the accuracy enhancing work on hunting rifles is like hitching a race horse to a wagon. Yeah it can be done but why? A good Douglas barrel would probably give you all of the field accuracy you need without truing the action unless it's really out of tolerance. Remington 700 actions seem to have a lower cost edge to build a rifle on. I would think a Savage 110 action would be easier and cheaper than the Remington action to build a rifle on.

Jaywalker - Greg Tannel can true up your Ruger good guy to talk to also. I am just waiting for my barrel from Krieger to come in and then my M77 is off to Greg for the works, trued, firing pin bushed, bolt sleves front and rear and a trigger job (altho this one is pretty good).

I forgot to ask him b4 but I a,m gonna see if he will convert it from 30-06 to 300 wm.

Gre-tan

It's all hoooey, the Ruger is just as good as any other. One of the big reasons that Rugers aren't used in competition is that Ruger doesn't make a single shot action. I wish they would, it would be an easy change for investment casting. You also don't see Browning actions used either, for the same reason.
There probably are inherent accuracy differences, but I doubt any normal human shooter could see the difference. That's like all the people who claim Rugers don't shoot well and that the angled action screw is a bad design. How do you explain all the Rugers that shoot well. They must be special runs or something.

or good shooters got a hold of them <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Simple Explanation-A broken clock displays the correct time twice a day <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Thanks for the response guys.you have set my mind at rest.



Cheers,

DBT

DBT:
Well, I'm far from being an expert but...
I too have been told one of the reasons Rugers aren't seen on the bench rest circuit is because of their tendancy to flex. I don't know if it's true or not.
I can say that my rebuilt, tang safety Mod 77 can put 3 shots into a bit under 0.4" on a rather consistant basis. This rifle is a re-barreled .257 Roberts that has a Kreiger barrel chambered in .257 Imp. Kreiger did most of the work including blueprinting the action. The trigger is a Canjar single set & I have a Leupod Vari-X III 4.5 - 14 Tactical scope on it. I've got a lot more work to do on it but with a 75 gr. v-max & 46.4 grs. of IMR- 4895. I can't complain. Bear in Fairbanks

My local smith loved to build off Ruger actions. Based on the idea of Brownells selling barreled actions for 300 at the time. Those days are gone though.

Seems also that Robbie Barkman, ROBAR, built their SR series off Rem or Rugers at first. Now all you see is the Rem actions.

Different strokes, I guess. I prefer the Ruger stock design.

The "canoe paddle stock" is the original Ruger injection molded stock.

I personally like the design of the M-77 MK II action, and think they make fine hunting rifles. To intelligently look at this issue, lets look at how the Rem M-700 action, and the Ruger M-77 designs came about.

The M-700 was designed first and foremost as an easily manufactured and machined action, ie cheap to make. It just so happens that some of the features that make it cheap to manufacturer, are also conductive to relatively simple re-machining and accurizing down the road. If the action is easy to chuck up in simple ficturing to manufacture, the same holds true when you're accuracy gunsmith re-cuts the threading in the action that is off access, and faces the action perpendicular to the bore.

The Ruger was also designed as an easily manufactured action, but with the major difference that the action starts as an investment casting, with the goal of the minimal amount of machining required to finish the final product.

All actions with integral recoil lugs are more difficult to mount in a lathe for truing opperations, same holds for Win M-70's, Mauser 98's and Ruger M-77's.

Let's also look at benchrest guns, most competetive BR shooters don't use M-700!'s They use Stolle's, Hart's, etc, why, because they are designed purposely for the task.

Those that don't use the purpose built actions do so for one reason, cost. If you're playing the cost game, you'll go Rem 700, it is cheapest action that can be cheaply built into an accurate gun. If a smith says it'll cost you an extra $100 to tune up a Ruger compared to a Rem, are you going to pay the extra $? No, and especially not so with an action that has been ignorantly maligned as inacurate.

I've seen way too many small groups fired by contender actions, that have much more going against them being consistantly accurate to buy this nonsense about flimsy actions not shooting.

I also have a milsurp mauser 98, with two stage trigger, a cheap A&B barrel, wood stock and a 2.5x scope chambered as a 350 Rigby that will consistantly send 250 gr bullets @ 2700 fps and group 3 shot under an inch day after day, rain or shine. I haven't been able to squeze three into a 1/2" group, but close, and if the inch aproaches an inch, it's my fault.

I'd be very suprised if an M77, properly trued, fit with a properly chambered 22 or 6 br, properly bedded, and with loaded with match grade bullets wouldn't shoot into the 2's. I've heard the factory 6PPC's would do so, no reason to think a good smith couldnt' match that.

I agree, and your post pretty well sums up my views on the subject.

Learn something every day. You mean those hollw POS's. I thought "canoe paddle" referred to the basic design. All my Rugers are walnut or laminated.

I don't find Rugers a poor design at all, and have several that shoot quite well. I don't think they are the basis for a BR rifle, but then I wouldn't build one of those with a Remchester either.

I suspect that so many people have done so much work with the 700 action that a few are bound ot shoot straight. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> After that, you don't want to confuse the issue with facts. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I knew a couple of BR shooters (brothers) who liked the concept of the angled guard screw well enough they built that feature into the BR actions they built for themselves. When they were active they were consistent winners.
The Ruger 77 of any vintage is not a suitable action for a BR rifle. Nor is any open bottomed hunting rifle action. While I have used a lot of Model 70s as the basis for long range target guns, I wouldn't consider one for a serious BR rifle.
The ruger is not more flexible than the 700. In fact it is less so.
Generally speaking I think a 77 can be made to perform every bit as well as a Model 70 and either one can equal a 700. It is just easier to accomplish the task with a 700.
Some of the most accurate factory rifles I have worked with have been 77s. Properly bedded, they shoot every bit as well as anything else. They just are not BR actions.
As far as investment casting is concerned, the process should be able to make as good a receiver as any other method. In practice though, this doesn't seem to be the case. Ed Shilen used invevtment casting to produce his DGA actions and, while the design was great , the quality (froma BR standpoint) was inconsistent. The actions simply came up a bit short when it came to "trueness". At least on a consistent basis. This may have more to do with the methods used to machine the castings but there it is. GD

I think you hit the nail on the head. Unless the castings are poor quality to begin with (a different problem), there is no reason investment castings cannot be machined as true as forgings.

A friend asked me, just today, if I thought a Tikka was good action as he has $800 to spend on a new rifle. I told all of the current rifles are fine and will do the job, just that some are better than others. However, a good rule is to look at what the custom 'smiths are working with, usually a rem 700 or win 70. I know there are some exceptions but I would be that the rem and wins make up 90% of all custom applications. by custom, I mean installing new barrels and other features. really, there have been no ground-breaking improvements since the introductin of the mauser 98. I think remington is the easy choice for the fellow who wants to buy a rifle, mount a scope and go hunting. the win 70 typically needs a bit of fine tuning but, in my opion, is better in the end. still, most ugly ole barrel lug nut savages shoot pretty well!

The 'flex' people refer to in Ruger rifles is indeed there on many. It is because of poor bedding into the stock - not any particular failing of the invest ment cast reciever. A Remchester will flex as much or more if you put 3 screws in it and don't properly full-length bed the reciever.

Bed a Ruger (or a Remchester) reciever flat, in glass or pillars there is no flex, and it will shoot, other things being in spec. Rugers, in my experience, are mostly not properly factory bedded - Some of them are downright scary, there is so much flex as the screws are tightened down! I have several as hunting rifles, myself, all glass bedded and free floated. I can't claim .5 groups, but they all do under 1.25 which does me just fine. Except for one load with my .338 which will do right around 1.0 groups at either 100 or 200 yards. I haven't quite figured that one out yet! But then I don't use that load for hunting usually anyway.

My standard that if any screw in any action starts to snug up and doesn't come fully tight in a half turn, the bedding is not sufficiently flat and incompressible. And that too, is exactly what pillar bedding does.