Here's the q:

I'm gettin' old...58...and although I have boocoo rifles, I don't have, and have never had, a .270 Win.

I am pondering getting one. I see a few blued M77's still available. Downside: weight...they seem heavy, and I'm not getting any younger, with a move to the mountains planned for within the next 5 years. Also, I have a M77 ss/laminate in '06, and the stock seems a wee bit long for me. But with the M77's being discontinued, I'm a'feared of not getting one while I still can. The general opinion on the Fire seems to be the M77 is the better gun over the American Rifle.

Sub q: can the M77 be restocked with a synthetic stock, to help cut weight?

Or...a Savage stainless. Lighter, and the stock seems to fit better (I have a blued .25-06).

My guess is y'all would say the M77 is the quality piece over the Savage. I have a few Savages (.25-06, 7mm mag) and have no complaints with them. I have never gotten out to fire the M77 '06, but only because I just never made it out, not because I harbor any animus towards it.

What is y'all's opinion? Would you recommend the M77 or the Savage?

I've got a bunch of M77s. They are my second favorite rifle behind a Pre-64 M70. Never could get past the looks of a Savage so I don't own any. However, every one I've ever shot has been very accurate.

Guess you can tell which way I would go. Choose what fits you best.

Buy the Ruger

Sounds like you need an all weather Ruger m77 to me...

Buy the one you like the best n make it fit...

Don't overlook the 700 mountain rifle.

Back in the 90's, I picked up a blued/ synthetic stock 270 for $250. It became the beater rifle that I started my junior hunters on. I'd use the low recoil rounds to get them started and later work them up to standard 130 gr ammo.

The rifle will still give me 3 shots groups under 1/2" at 100 yds with Federal Fusion.

For packing or deer drives, its the one my family all tries to claim.

Today, it wears a laminate stock and a VX2 3-9. We all agree its the one gun thats not for sale.

I'm not down on Ruger, I hunt whitetails with my 7mm Mag more than any other rifle. But it is heavier than the Mt rifle.

The one thing I don't like about the Savage and Ruger rifles in .270 WCF is that they come with a 22" barrel. Seems to me that the .270 preforms best out of a 24" tube. For that reason alone I'd look into a Remington 700(and I'm not a big Remington fan, although I really don"t DISLIKE them either). I don't think you could go too wrong with any of the three.

Politely -- you answered your own question!

Jerry


ps - yes, I've had salvages.

It's your choice........but since you asked, I'd buy the Ruger, hands down.

There is another current thread asking this exact same question. Evidently you can get the Hawkeye in synthetic if you want. You can get a McMillan stock and that should shed some weight but will cost you a good bit. Sounds like you prefer the Ruger.

Do you think the M77 270 will be a bit redundant to the laminate '06? I mean not enough of a different rifle overall as far as weight and feel etc... Point being maybe something a full pound or more lighter might be what you would really appreciate in the hills?

Buy a used 270 cheap in the action you prefer and have a syn stock fitted to you. You could have whatever weight you desire and it wouldn't cost you much more than an off-the-rack rifle.

The only 77s being discontinued are the all-weathers, as far as I know.

I would always choose the Ruger over the Savage, just because I think they look better and have the reputation of being bombproof. The Savage trigger will be better out of the box, but a $7 spring will lighten up the Ruger a good bit. A M70 Featherweight and (urk!) a Tikka might be other options to consider. The boys seem to like the Ruger Americans, but I don't care for the magazine.

If the Savage's fit you better,buy a Savage.

I am a big fan of the 270. Having owned at least 10, I have some experience. If I were to buy another, I would get a Tikka. They are very accurate and don't require the tweaking that most of the other brands do. My Tikka T-3 Hunter (wood stock) in 6.5x55 is the same weight as a 270 would be. It weighs about 7.5 lbs. with a Leupold 3-9x scope on top. That is light enough to carry but not so light it will lump you up when you shoot it. I currently own two 270s, a pre-64 Model 70 and a custom FN Mauser, both with 3-9x scopes. The Model 70 weighs over 9 lbs. and the Mauser weighs about half a pound less. Both are heavy. I have had more Remingtons than any other brand, and am a big Remington fan. They are the small block Chevy of bolt action rifles. That said, I would still buy a T-3 Hunter. Buy whichever brand you like. You can't go wrong with a 270, IMHO.

I've owned several of both in various calibers and like both fine. The Savages have been more accurate on average by a considerable margin. If buying a varmint rifle I'd go Savage every time. For big game where gilt edge accuracy is not paramount, I'd go Ruger.

Buy the one whose stock fits you better. It's a game rifle, not a target/varmint rifle.
If you think the Ruger is prettier, look at a Savage 114. I'm an owner of multiple Ruger rifles, but I think the Savage is more likely to be accurate.