I always liked the 77`s.Most I had were fairly accurate.Triggers suck,but are fixable.Main problem is resale.They do not command anywhere near the resale of a Winchester or Remmy.So are they the Rodney Dangerfield of Rifles????

Investment cast receivers turn some guys off...

Always wondered that too...why do investment cast recievers turn them off?

Don't know don't care. Let them hate....Keeps prices down and the dumb [bleep] can keep using their unsafe pos remingtons...

They don't lend themselves to backyard gunsmiths, and "customizing".

How boring to buy a rifle, leave it as manufactured - and actually be successful in hunting and shooting.

Need evidence? Ruger 10/22.

Never had a problem with 77s myself, buying cheap and selling high is not beyond realm of possibles. Ruger has a knack for making guns a bit clunky and I think that goes to both wood and metal. Lighter/slimmer/svelte would help. Oh, and screw their short barreled guns. Truly.

The short action 77's don't stick around long when advertised for sale, but the long actions (especially in 30-06) just struggle to bring a sale, even at a modest price. You can have a very nice 77 for sale -- entact, and operable -- alongside a Remington action-only for the same amount of money, and the Remington action will probably sell first.

Six-months later, the "custom" Remington will have two-grand tied up in it, and won't outdo the $450.00 Ruger (if the "build" is complete).

In my case it was because I hadn't tried them in a long, long time. My opinion was based on the crappy barrels they used to use.

I owned one Model 77 in the early 80's and it sucked. Heavy barrel .25-06 and it grouped around 2" with everything - this was supposed to be a varmint rifle!? A friend had a .220 Swift from the same era, it was okay but not great, nowhere near the accuracy of out of the box Remingtons of that era.

Fast forward 30 years. Ruger came out with a run of LH stainless 77's in a short action. I got a .308, it shot good out of the box. After free floating, bedding and a trigger job (they do require that IM limited E) it shot terrific. The trigger is crisp and breaks right at 3 lbs.

So I got another LH stainless 77, a .25-06. Same-same. Shot good out of the box (good as in 1 1/4" or so), with some bedding, floating and lightening the trigger it shoots great. 3 shot groups hovering either side of 1/2" are not uncommon.

Just bought another one two days ago from Bud's. I'll be buying more. Plus, I think so highly of these rifles I'm getting custom stocks made for the ones I have. These will be based on the factory stock with just a few modifications to fit my shooting hand better.

They are rugged, reliable, accurate enough and with minimal tweaking can be outstanding.

Their handguns have always commanded my respect, now their rifles are getting the same.

Dat was mean...

My first hunting rig was a 77 in 30/06 and I still have it, albeit as a 6.5/06 now, since I shot that barrel out.

The hit a home run with the Hawkeye stock, my slimmer. The original tang stocks were clubby, especially love the 1/2" wide flats on either side of the barrel.

Yeah, I ended up remodeling some of the original stocks just because they were so clubby. They lightened up nicely, though.

In my experience the barrels of the tang-safety weren't nearly as bad as some people believe. My first was a .30-06 and it turned out to be very accurate, as did those on several other rifles, including a pair of sporter-weight .220 Swifts. The only tang-safety 77 I still own is one of those Swifts, and it will group five of most 55-grain bullets into around 1/2" at 100, exactly how small depending on the bullet.

But a few of the barrels truly did suck, and if you got one (especially right off the bat) then your general opinion of 77's would certainly be prejudiced. Ruger started making their own hammer-forged barrels about 20 years ago, and the accuracy has been very good ever since.

The tang-safety 77's aren't used for many custom rifles, but I did have a .300 Winchester Magnum made off one about 10 years ago by Charlie Sisk, who knows how to work on 'em. It was VERY accurate, and the only reason I don't have it anymore it my magazine editors got sick of reading about it. I've always liked the tang safety a lot more than the present side-safety.

This morning (as I wait for wind to subside - hopefully), I have a Rem 722 sitting in a vice, with compound all-but dry, after a trigger adjustment, and tweaking this, and polishing that. I have at the ready, a 700 in customized 204 that has more money tied up in than should be allowed - and then one bone stock early 77 in 243 Win that are ready to go to a range session.

The 243 has never had a wrench (other than an allen for trigger pull adjustment) on it, and shoots itty-bitty groups with 80, or 100-grain bullets of all type. How can a person be all knowing when all you have to do is use it?

Yesterday I picked up a custom based on a tang safety M77. Brown Precision built it using one of their stocks, unknown after market barrel. It had been sitting in the rack for more than five months. Was told customers weren't interested because it was on a Ruger action. Cost for this 6# rifle was not much more than the price of a Brown Precision stock. In fairness, I haven't shot it yet and it was used.I won't get a chance to shoot it for a week, but am pretty sure there won't be any problems.

Mako I had a mint .22-250 just like you described your .243....so of course, I sold it.

We have more 77's we hunt with than any other rifle. Nice gun for the money. Resale doesn't really matter to me because the way they shoot I'm not planning to sell any of them.

The 77 is my favorite action for a hunting rifle now, but I had to hold my nose and wade through several experiences with bad barrels before coming to that conclusion. The 3 tang safety 77's I had way back when were good shooters but I didn't care for the stock or the push-feed design.

I had 3 early 77MKII's and, lucky me, won the bad-barrel lottery with each one. They truly sucked in the accuracy department.

I now have 2 of the later 77MKII's and they are great rifles. The action is strong, safe, slick, feeds well and they shoot accurately.

I like them and if had to replace any of my rifles over that is what I would buy. The 77 was heavy, but the Hawkeye slimmed em down. Like said, my Remingtons have a bunch of money in them and other than weight, no improvements (well ok they look good).

Seriously,

how many Rem 700s have you had problems with?

We've discussed this a little before and I think you have drunk the kool ade of the ?press?

Since 1975 (IIRC) I've had MORE 700s than any other brand/model. I've not had ONE SINGLE problem of ANY sort.

I have a long time close friend that got 1 that had a burr in the chamber. Gunny fixed in a heart beat.


About the 77s. I've had em and got over em. Ain't looking for one.

I've never owned a Remington. But if I did I'd just swap out the trigger for a Timney if I was concerned...

I own one Ruger 77 and like it very much.

I never seen a Ruger do this...?

and you won't.ever....

No issues here, even with the tangsters. Elk, moose, nilgai, black bear, deer, hogs...

My first CF rifle was a 77, and I'm still partial to them. The new Hawkeyes are great rifles.

Some don't like the idea of investment cast receivers but when pressed - no one seems to be able to procure a picture of a blown up Ruger action.

Ya' ever try drilling a Ruger investment cast part? My Ruger 22 Hornet still has a snapped off tap in its trigger from my attempt at installing an overtravel stop screw ten years ago. No worries here.

Jack O'Connor spoke well of them, Bill Ruger was a great gun designer and the things are American. I have had a lot of rifles and the Ruger stacked up well with any of them.

When you use the wrong drill bits that's what happens.
Bits are available for DHT 1903 Springfields, they'll go through any part on a Ruger.

it's rare that i find a factory stocked rifle that fit's me as well as my old tang safety ruger .243 did...
thinking perception and physical differences make all the difference...

the mk II rugers stock had too tight a radius on the pistol grip...

the hawkeye is better'n the mkII but still not the great stock of the tang safety...

you'ns mileage may vary...

I think you talk out your azz too jwall. They are a pos, plain and simple. I've personally experienced them firing on their own (due to tight azz chambers, faulty triggers and safties), not extracting (many [bleep] times), luckilly I've never had a bolt handle fall off or I would have slung a rifle further than you could imagine....Speaking of that, you've got one hell of a good imagination if you think the Ruger 77's arn't capable of being extremely accurate and fully functional and tough as nails. One of the best utilitarian rifles ever made....

They do not? News to me.

I think that angled front action screw has a lot of folks bewildered about the whole action. I've had three M77Rs and had no issues with any of the three, but doing a glass-job, if wanted or needed, spooks some people. I never needed to glass mine, they all shot "minute of deer" and at that time, that was all I cared about.

Any goob can smith a Remington (and a lot of them do), but the Ruger makes that tougher to accomplish.

I like the older tang-safety models better than the new ones, the safety is too small for me to manipulate easily.

+ 1 on the tang safety.

I think that the Ruger is easier to bed than a Remington, no need to worry about taping lugs for clearance. There are a lot of folks, some of them smiths who have beliefs about the Ruger and I suspect that they really haven't worked on them much.

One issue with the Ruger is that the angled screw makes some stock work challenging. If the distance between the action and the floorplate changes, the angled screw means that the floor plate will be too tight or too loose.

I drive Ford trucks and shoot tang safety M 77s, but it wasn't always that way.

No wrong bit used... Ever work a Ruger?

I've had 4 tang safety 77's. 3 were accurate, 1 was not. My IKM77Mk II in .30-06 has shot a good number of 1/2" 3-shot groups. I did this again last Saturday with 180 gr partitions and Ramshot Hunter.

Great picture and roedeer . Where were you hunting? They are my favorite game to hunt.

First of all, I have no reason to lie. No one is paying me from Remington.

Second, I never said 77s weren't accurate or functional.

Basically I said I don't care them, they're not my cup of tea.

You got my take ALL WRONG.

I have owned 3, 2 tang safety and an MKII. The 22-250 was the most accurate rifle I have owned and I foolishly sold it. My 250 Sav. is Ok, certainly good for its intended purpose. My 7x57 (MKII) had some issues, was sent back to Ruger, fixed in very short order, and turned out to be very accurate. I gave that to my nephew.

My son's 7x57, also a MKII, is very accuarte and a nice rifle.

I've had a coupla LH M77's and they just don't elicit any passion in me.
Firstly I enjoy tinkering with my rifles. Ruger doesn't make that as easy to do as on say a 700 or a Savage.
Secondly I dislike the side swing safety. All the disadvantages of M70 safety with none of the advantages. Did they make any tang safety LH 77's? I like tang safeties.
Thirdly the LH rifles are mostly chambered in pedestrian (albeit effective) cartridges. I just can't find any love in me for the .308, the .30-06, or 22" tubed .270's. And as I said in my first post here, rebarreling isn't as easy on a 77. Doable of course but not as easy as others. If Ruger put out a 24" .270 I'd take a close look.
Fourth, I dislike the fixed positioning of the scope rings and the high price of replacement rings for the 77. Do they make aluminum rings for the 77?
Fifth, I dislike laminated stocks and that seems to be all they offered on their latest run of LH SS 77's.
Sixth, I dislike their weight. Their lightweight rifles have short tubes which I hate even more. No EDGE available for them either IIRC.

They do go reasonably cheaply however and I may have to get another one someday if I run across a killer deal.

Had 3 or 4 tangs and MKIIs go thru my buddy and I and we've been blessed as they all shot crazy good. A tang 358 shot groups at 200 yds that were unreal, sold it naturally.

I hate Rugers!

9.3x62

7x64 (back) w/9.3x62 (front)

.275 Rigby

.308 Norma

.257 Roberts

6.5-06AI


Plus a few others, I don't have photos of.

I own one Hawkeye in 6.5 creedmoor. I have a few issues with the gun out of the box .....the actions are gritty and rough feeling, other actions at similar prices are smoother, trigger is only average at best, and truthfully, the recoil lug design should change. On the positive side after a bit of tigger work the gun shoots about moa which is fine, and the gun feels like it is built like a tank, and shoot pretty good. My biggest thing is how rough it feels when working the action and safety. Maybe it will get better over time. Just my .02 worth.

I've got a few Ruger's ... one is a 458AccRel, another a 458B&M, plus another in 358Norma, plus a factory 308Win RSI Mannlicher carbine.

All are solid hunting rifles that perform as intended. If others don't rate them it's no skin off my nose.
Cheers...
Con

I started with both and I'm sticking with them.

I like my tang safety 35 Whelen, it is the only bolt action I own, have sold my Savage and Rem bolts. If/when I buy another bolt action, it will be a Ruger.
One day I'll find a Ruger with a lever.

Quote
(One issue with the Ruger is that the angled screw makes some stock work challenging. If the distance between the action and the floorplate changes, the angled screw means that the floor plate will be too tight or too loose.)

Harder to restock in a custom stock. And small recoil lug loose action screws will break a stock on the hard kickers. Bedding and keeping screws tight resolves that. Have found they are a little more fussy to get to shoot well. But have several LH and tough to find a LH CRF rifle I like them.

When the M77 appeared in the late 60's, it was a breath of fresh air to many people and most of the gun scribes of the era. In profile, it looked more like a pre-war rifle. No white line spacers, no monte carlo stock with an exaggerated cheek piece and a "bowling pin" finish. The stock was a "classic" style" with cut checkering with a finish that resembled rubbed oil. The scope mounts were integral with the receiver and a free set of 1" rings was included. At first they sold very well but then reality set in. A large percentage didn't shoot very well. Manny didn't trust the cast bolt and receiver and it was common to see receivers with cosmetic flaws related to the casting process. A lot of people didn't like the flat sided receiver and some had edges sharp enough to draw blood. A lot of dealers resented the loss of profitable base and ring sales. Many gunsmiths said they were junk, as they didn't lend themselves to customizing. As with some other Ruger products, the receivers turned purple if re-blued. Like cars, those that got a good one loved it, and those that had problems hated it. The accuracy "nuts" shot Remingtons and "real" hunters shot pre-64 Model 70's. Ruger did address many of the problems and the M77 developed a loyal following, but there were few converts among the "haters" and that seems to hold true to this day. Then the "assault rifle" thing heated up and Bill Ruger sided with the Government to keep his Mini-14 of the list, angering many gun owners. I personally new a lot of shooters that would not buy anything Ruger, saying they would not put a dime in that sellout's pocket. Also, most other manufacturers started making "classic" styled rifles with improved fit and finish, there by stealing some of Ruger's thunder in the looks department. I just bought a GSR and like it. But then, what do I know?

Rugged reliable built like a tank but not a good reputation for out of the box accuracy..........I like them Myself, especially the bomb proof scope mounting system..............Hb

Brandenburg State Forest district north east of Berlin.

Have had the mk1, mk2 & 2 x hawk eyes and must be one of the lucky few

I had a 22.250, 260rem, 338wm & 9.3x62. All regularly shot moa at 100 yards if I did my bit. I can not blame one missed shot in the field on the rifle...which pretty much sums it up for me.

I like rugers, but it doesn't have to be the only brand in the safe.

I think Rugers seem to get a bad rap for a number of reasons..They are slightly chunky, and have (or had?) pretty poor triggers out of the box. Accuracy was spotty years ago, but seems to have been resolved. The bedding system with the angled action screw is usual enough to put many folks off trying to bed them, and those that do, seem to get mixed results.

On the other hand, I appreciate M77's for what they are: a solid, no nonsense working rifle. The triggers could be worked over to produce excellent results and I love the integral bases..Add to that the stainless steel used in the all weather versions really does seem to resist rusting and you have a great working rifle for a modest price.

Regards,

Peter

True - I see not need for trench warfare in hunting products either.

My gunsmith won't do a build on one or accurize one. The cast receiver is his big peeve. My Brother has a short .308 he's carried in Maine for 30 years. One day, he was having trouble closing the bolt. It was sticking. I brought it to the gunsmith and he found a burr in the bolt. I couldn't see it, but he polished it up and it stopped sticking. He gave me the Ruger speech that day, and I never bought one. I saw a Ruger Super Redhawk with the top strap split at the back of the cylinder that kept me from ever buying one of those too. I have a super blackhawk though. I just had to have one.

Your gunsmith is likely an idiot.

I hate the 2 piece bottom metal more than about anything else. I've also seen more split Ruger 77 stocks than all other brands put together. I always bed them.

I like the Ruger 77 a lot and have had a pile of them. However, they're a bit clunky in the hands and a bit heavy. For me, that's the only real downside, though I dislike the angled action screw as well and the bottom metal isn't the best either.

My gunsmith is the best and most talented gunsmith I have ever met, and he has done a ton of work for me and my friends from building rifles to making shotgun stocks to accurizing and fixing what other gunsmiths have screwed up. He is a master machinist and makes parts for everyone from the water company to custom motorcycle builders. I would switch doctors, dentists, lawyers, pets, and possibly spouses before I would switch gunsmiths. 25 plus years and never been anything but happy, happy, happy with his work. Also, in 25 years of hunting and target shooting, I have never seen a single one match grade rifle built on a Ruger action. I have them built on Remington, Winchester, Nesika, Borden, and am planning a .260 Rem on a Rem 700 with said gunsmith right now.

Sactoller,

Dood, you got some NICE rifles....

Call me dumb, but can a fella get a MMillan for a Tang Ruger?

Yup...ruger R pattern

But no EDGE stocks are available for any 77 AFAIK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Remington semi-auto??

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

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

77s have never caused me any trouble however.



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

Because they have to EARN it!

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

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

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

Now Klik you know you can't use a wood/blue rifle in Alaska.

I like Ruger rifles, got a feeling my next will be a Ruger too.

My exposure to Ruger M77's dates back to their introduction,and once the long action came out I quickly had a 270,30/06,and a 7 Rem Mag.These were original rifles and I can't recall accuracy issues with the early ones.

It was not unusual for special runs to be made and I got a 257 Roberts that I used for a lot of woodchuck hunting here in New England. It was fussy but I found a couple of loads that shot well and used the rifle a lot.These all went west with me druing the 70's and I killed pronghorn out to 400 yards or so, and my biggest mule deer to date near Durango with a 270.

Somewhere in here quality started to slip,and several guys who had grabbed 7x57's complained loud and long....seems the throats were like the Holland Tunnel and bullets had to make long jumps to the lands,and would not shoot, or were very fussy.I hear Wilson barrels were also faulted for the accuracy issues.But one friend put a 7 mag in a synthetic stock and used it on everything out west...another 270 was very accurate.

They started making their own barrels when the Mark II action came out,and on the exact same hammer forging machinery used by Remington and Winchester,sourced out of Germany IIRC;but I have not owned many since then that I remember.I have had a Ruger African that shot well,and a 7 mag that did likewise within the last few years.

The rifles are bomb proof...seems nothing ever breaks,you can't kill them, and like most factory offerings sometimes need tweaking to get them to shoot.I guess in a day and age when shooters expect tiny groups from cheap rifles,they may not get this with a Ruger M77.But they seem to shoot well enough,and I would trust one far more as a hunting rifle to keep trucking under bad conditions than most anything else out there today that comes over the counter.

I'm a M70 guy but,otherwise, for something dependable,for me,over the counter, it would be a Ruger M77 Mark II.

One thing that hurt the early 77s was Ruger's bloody minded CS. They built a lot of guns they knew would not shoot accurately and would look you in eye and say 4MOA was plenty adequate for hunting so go way! That 'rule of thumb' by old Bill still has ocassional echoes if you get the wrong person on the wrong day at Ruger, but more recently they generally have cleaned up sloppy chambers andnolonger buy the cheapest -- and often bad-- barrels on offer. These days, Ruger very often will fix accuracy problems gratis too.

Back when I owned a lot of 77s I had several of the much admired here mod 1 77s -- in 7x57 and .35 Whelen. Both were disgraceful scatter guns as was a 22 Hornet VHZ until I had it K-ed.

The bad rep lives on, well beyond it's valid shelf life.

1b

It's interesting how the rifles are built to the same paradigm as the handguns - tough, not too polished in operation or anything else, okay to good OOTB accuracy, with cast frames (someone correct me if the handguns aren't cast).

Yet folks view the rifles on the same level as a worthy wrench and hammer but unworthy of much gussying up and certainly not worthy of being in the same room with custom pre-64's and various custom Mausers, while praises are sung for those who turn the handguns into high art.





If the human race is ever consistent in its outlook I'll know the end times are near...

I have built a few semi-custom rifles (custom barrels in glass stocks) on 77 actions and don't really mind the actions. However, I like a lot of other actions better.
I've built a couple of target rifle on 77's and they shot as well as any other commercial repeater action.
There are some design features which I think are quite clever and which set the Rugers apart. The first is the angled guard screw; I like it. The second feature is the bolt stop. Although it falls short of being attractive, it is a robust, simple, and function piece. The cushioning effect of the stop prevents deformation of the left lug from rapidfire use.
Ruger has carefully avoided making a decent trigger and I would have liked to have seen a different scope mounting system. The Talley dovetailed rings would have been much nicer IMO. Virtually any trigger system would be an improvement.
It is a bit difficult to make a really attractive 77. The receiver shape is a bit homely and surfaces are often so badly polished they can't be straightened up.
Feeding issues are not uncommon in any chambering.
I thought the first stocks were pretty decent but they bulked up in the late seventies and remained fat and homely.
I have a tang safety 7x57 right now. I re-shaped the stock and set the barrel back and re-chambered to correct the too-long throat and a slightly eccentric chamber. The rifle shot quite well but the barrel wasn't real pretty inside. I re-barreled it with a new Lothar Walther barrel and turned it from a pretty good shooter into the worst shooting rifle I own! I have never had a barrel foul so badly and so quickly. I have done little except walk by the rack and glare at it for a while but I think I'll lap the darn thing and see what I can accomplish. It's really kind of a nice looking rifle but it's hard to like it right now. GD

My favorite Ruger is an older tang safety RS 35 Whelen that I have thrown in a Bansner stock. I have killed critters using the 250 Speer (black bear) and Partition (black bear, nilgai and hogs) but settled on the 225 gr TSX (elk, moose, hogs and deer) some years ago. It shoots the TSX least accurate of the three bullets only averaging 1 5/8" or so (three shots). I have not "worked" up a load with the TSX, just went straight to the Barnes max and mag box max and took it hunting in northern BC. I am sure I can dial the TSX in given time which is always lacking. Doubt I will given the results.

And yes, Jim, agree on the paradox with Ruger sixguns. Particularly given that, IME, sixgun loony's are loonier than rifle loony's. They do make into very fine revolvers though.

I have used Ruger's as my go-to hunting rifles since 1994. Still waiting on the first malfunction. They are tough and uterly reliable, which is why I chose them in the first place.

The early M77 stocks were designed by Lenard Brownell & are quite svelt and nicely profiled. By the mid seventies, the stocks gained weight & size and didn't feel nearly as nice when handled. In the early eighties, the stocks were put on a diet & returned to a similar profile to the early stock design. The new Hawkeye wood stocks are the best they've produced to date.

Man ,I think I got some wood lookin at this porn!!!!

M77s look wonderful, but a rifle that won't shoot MOA is useless IMO. Ruger handguns are nice except their double action revolvers.

IMO is definitely the operative part of that sentence.

While shooting MOA with Ruger rifles doesn't seem to be all that unusual - even for me!- I find the idea that one needs an MOA capable rifle to kill things bigger than ground hogs woefully short of real-world experience.

Tack drivers do promote confidence. The benefit of which is hard to quantify.

But as Klik pointed out, 1.5" rifles will do just fine in 99% of hunting scenarios if you do your part.

This issue of investment castings for gun parts by Ruger and others comes up once in a while. I have found investment castings to be reliable in my experience.

I was a purchasing manager at two very large manufacturing companies here in the USA. One is one of the largest tool manufacturing companies in the world.

We made some of our tool parts from investment castings. Most of the metals were alloy steel which where finish machined by us and heat treated and further finished as required.

These were reliable parts and we never had any problem with them.

One of my vendors was the Pine Tree Co. of New Hampshire. I toured their New Hampshire plant and it was very well run. It had almost a military feel to it up there being very clean etc.

Rugers castings were very good and of course they had won the bid.

For someone to disparage investment castings for well engineered parts of any machine they should be more specific.

http://www.ruger.com/casting/index.html





S99

+1, smack on. As a guy who's had a number of these rifles over the last 37 years, the shooters outnumber the dogs five to one, and all of the rifles that wouldn't shoot were pre-90 vintage. I have three now, all shoot very well, sub-MOA (.220 Swift, 30/06, .338 Win Mag...and the Swift and '06 are significantly sub-MOA). All that said, as Klikitarik said, in the game fields this is a ridiculous discussion. I'd take a 1.5 to 2 MOA rifle that held zero day in/day out, year after year, to a one holer I was constantly worried over where the group was going to be.

Amen!

I value first shot out of cold bore consistency MUCH more than multi shot grouping ability for my hunting rifles.

A few days after I turned 18 in 1986 I bought a new tang safety Ruger M77 7mm rem mag. I was very proud of that rifle and eventually killed a lot of deer with it. However, it was at best a 3" rifle at 100 yds. I reloaded for it for many years and ran hundreds of dollars worth of powder and bullets through it trying to make it shoot to no avail, it just wasn't going to shoot better than 3" consistently. Rarely would I ever have a situation where I'd need to shoot more than 150 yds, and my old 30-30 would have certainly done as well as the Ruger at the ranges I used it. A 3" rifle kind of handicaps a flat shooting round like a 7mm rem mag if you actually needed to use it to it's capabilities. I loved the way the rifle felt and handled, and the tang safety is where ALL rifles should have them, they made them considerably less attractive to me when they moved the safety. It was a good looking rifle, much nicer looking than the california pimp style that was in vogue at the time with huge monte carlo's and white line spacers. If I could have gotten that rifle to shoot halfway decently I might have continued buying Rugers, but nowadays a rifle doesn't interest me unless it shoots well, and you pretty much had to be inside the barn to hit it with that rifle.

How much more "specific" does one need to be? You hear it all the time.....If they can't convince you they are a POS because of that, they will try the "they shoot like chit, their barrels are crap, they are too heavy I can't pack them around because I'm a [bleep] puzzy". I hope that was more specific for you now....Here's what a poster said just a few minutes ago in one of swampy's threads:



This was just posted minutes ago.....and I've heard it many times....was I wrong or do you need more "specifics"?...

I've got a boat paddle .270 KM77MKII, hits to point of aim EVERY time from a cold barrel. That's with three different scopes, any number of hand or factory loads. All light bullet factory loads shoot 3/4 to 1 1/2, some heavies about 2. Hand loads with Magpro or R22 shoot 5/8 to 3/4 groups, some times better. Put a Timmney trigger, Decel pad, and bedded (good thing I didn't know they were impossable to bed with that action screw ). I like the looks of the action better than a M700. I like not having to have multi element rings and bases. I've never had a feed issuse. Just throw it in the truck or jeep and go. Would not hesitate to buy another.

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

" I can respect that." So can I.

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

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

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

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

Talking common sense to a uniformed poster doesn't work

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

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

1) Bad barrels from 1980's that Ruger installed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom

I don't know why either, I had more that one or two and I still own a Number 1. I had a Mark II M-77 in 6.5 x 55 and it was the rifle I shot when I was going to shoot for money. I sold it when I down sized my collection some years ago. In hind sight its a rifle I should have kept. The M-77 is a good no BS hunting rifle, some may need a little bit of TLC out of the box but they are a good value in a hunting rifle. Ruger has given us shooters and hunters rifles and hand guns nobody else would even make and at prices that you can go and buy if you had a mind to. All in all Ruger makes a decent rifle and I would not give a second thought to taking one out of the box put a scope on it go zero it in and then go hunting.

I did! My apology.

I respect mine enough that these three pieces of walnut are going on three Ruger Model 77's. Nothing is being done to the barreled actions themselves except lightening up the triggers some.

my 77 tang safety 300 wm

Oh, I kind of like mine.








"Ruger M77 Mk II in .30-06 Springfield customized by Lone Star Armory. English walnut stock with African ebony fore end cap; shadow line cheek piece; cross bolt; flat point checkering. Stock finished with 52 hand rubbed coats of oil. Pachmayr Decelerator pad. Steel magazine floor plate. Dakota inletted pistol grip cap and rear sling stud. Ruger barrel band sling stud. Rifle Basix trigger. Pillar and glass bedded. Bolt and extractor jeweled. Bolt lugs lapped. Action polished. Extractor tuned."









"Stainless Ruger M77 Mk II in .338 Win Mag customized by Lone Star Armory. Ruger factory walnut stock has been reshaped and slimmed down. Stock refinished with 47 hand rubbed coats of oil. Checkering hand cut. Barrel diameter has been slightly reduced using draw files. Action, barrel, and bottom metal have been vapor honed. Bolt and extractor jeweled, Neidner pistol grip cap, African ebony fore end cap, Timney trigger, Mauser cross bolt. Action glass bedded. Lugs lapped. Action polished. Extractor tuned. With scope, it weighs 8.75 pounds."

Cheers!
-Bob F.

i'm one of the other few...

i like the CRF, much preferring it to the push feed Mk 1, and a safety that blocks the striker--especially in workhorse rifles that get a lot of field use--is a very good idea. though i never use a safety in any hunting situation--preferring to keep the chamber empty until ready to fire, it is nevertheless a nice feature to have on a "workhorse user rig".

of all the Ruger rifles i've had over the past 34 years--all of them were/are fairly accurate, and only one of them has ever given me any issues. the rig was "accurate" in the sense that it would shoot a decent three shot group--or in a quick test for zero--it would keep two quick shots nicely together just as well as any good Remington, but there was unusual stress in that barrel, and it would walk right when the barrel became hot. i simply could not trust that rig with that particular barrel, in that particular stock.

My 77RS Whelen I threw in a Bansner stock. "Fixed" square notch rear sight with the filed in NECG sourdough front. Forend shortened and a #1 swivel band added, Leupold lows and it all finely bead blasted and blued. It goes 7 3/4 # as shown. Throws 225 gr TSX's inside an inch and a half which has proven to be more than adequate.

The several I had were marginal at best in the accuracy department. Triggers are poor and not easy/cheap to fix.
I don't bother looking at them anymore.

All mine have shoot from good to great, all are sub MOA. 2 required bedding but so have all my Remingtons and Winchesters. Triggers are terrible right out of the box, they are free to fix if you have about 20 mins and some polishing compound. I'm looking for my next one soon, either a .257 Roberts or a .260 Remington.

This deer found out to respect the 77

I like yours too...very much, and I imagine more than a critter or three has learned some respect for the 77 via them!

I have a Ruger M 77 RSI Tang Safety made in the early 80`s it doesn`t shoot worth a chit. After 2 or 3 rounds you can`t hit a 10" target at 50 yds. Does ANYBODY think Ruger will do anything? I would like to replace the barrel but don`t know with what.

velcro, I kind of doubt that they will do anything 30 or so years later but a call to Ruger wouldn't hurt.

Have you done anything to the rifles bedding? Sounds like a bedding/forearm pressure issue.

The RSI`s are free floating,it could possibly be that the cap that attaches the barrel to the stock is either to loose or to tight. I,v played with it to no avail.

You didn't say whether you messed with the bedding though..I think that was one of the questions..

Yeah, I hate 'em. A pair of M77 MkII Express models.

30/06 and .338 Winchester Magnum:

Velcro. What cartridge is your RSI chambered to? Mine are all in .308 Win and I was able to find one load that would do a consistant 1.5". A later adjustment to the nose piece brought groups to 1.25" I got into mine on the cheap because their previous ownners could get decent groups from them. If you have a very fine file and a fine chain saw file, try relieveing that nose cap just a hair. I used a fine flat file on the sided and the chain saw file on the curver portion. You really have to look quite close to even see that it's been opened up. If you rifle is in .308, I can give you the load that finally worked for me in all three rifles.
Lets face it, the RSIs are really a varmint rifle. When I had my 1903 Mannlicher in 6.5x54 that some low life stole out of y truck, the best it would do with the 140 gr. Norma load was 2.5 to 3.0" and it killed deer just fine. My current standard is 1.5" at 100 yards or smaller and after two tears of exhaustive experientation I finally got mine to that standard. They're just too cool a rifle to give up on.
Paul B.

Nice wood!

I have two tang safety Model 77's, a sporter in 30-06 and a Heavy Barrel Varment in 220 Swift. I picked them up in the late 1970's and both are accurate. The 30-06 will do consistently under 1.5" and the Swift will do a consistent 3/4" at 100 yards.

Those are beautiful GF1!! I like your style, can't get much better than that. Since you boys are showing pics, I'll whip out a few:

Most recent purchase is a round top tang safety 270 win that shoots pretty good (haven't had the time to work up a load for it yet):



My other tang safety (300 win mag):


It doesn't shoot too bad for a crappy tanger barrel:


My elk slayer (mkII 338 win mag):
[img]http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x401/chiefbsa/006-23.jpg[/img]
It shoots "allright" all the time:
[img]http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x401/chiefbsa/Image023-1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x401/chiefbsa/002-8.jpg[/img]

bsa1917hunter, too bad your old Rugers don't shoot either...

Nice rifles...keepers!

Yeah, that's my bad

Some beautiful rifles there boy`s,I still like Rugers.
BSA: I have not touched the bedding I am not sure what to do with it.
PJ Paul. It is a 243. I have some 85 & 90 gr. Nosler That I am going to try in it. I was shooting heavier rounds in it they were the ones giving me the trouble. I do have the tools to file down the end cap I have to take a close look at how the barrel & stock seats in it.

FYI, here's a good piece by northern dave on bedding a Model 77:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...14/DIY_bedding_M77_pic_heavy#Post3003214

There's a reason that thread is a sticky. Excellent info by Northern dave. VERY good read.....I'm a firm believer in bedding rugers and those of you that know me know I'm not bs'n you.....They gotta be bedded!!!!

Some of mine, they all shoot well.

Partsman,

nice rifles. Albeit, dear friend, I see, you are a disciple of a the "JeffO School of Scope Mounting", as evidenced by rifle No. 3 on the bottom, so it is no denying it.

;-)

Mine ain't much to look at but has made a fine beanfield rifle. Very accurate and tough as nails.

.264WM
Krieger barrel
McMillan stock
Timney trigger
S&B 3-12X50 Zenith scope



Terry

Thats a nice one!!!

Bill wasn't half bad at caving into the anti gunners either.

I'm a big fan of Ruger 77's and have 2 now, one tang safety (270) and one mkII in 6mm Rem. I love the mkII but after extensive work by a talented smith I still can't get it to do true controlled round feeding very time. About 1 in 8 times the cartridge will jump ahead of the extractor. The cartridge still chambers fine, but I'd rather it work the same each time. Anybody else have such a problem? I've heard long actions aren't as prone to this.

I had one of the early 90s stainless, boat paddle stock, push feed M77 MkIIs that wasn't relieved at the bottom of the bolt face as the newer ones are. It fed well enough though. It went back to Ruger when it wouldn't eject out of the box. After the claw extractor was replaced by Ruger, it extracted properly. It never was a very accurate rifle. Federal GMM 168gr BTHP .308 went into about 2" at 100yds. My best reloads did about 1.5" at the same distance. Playing with action screw tension and stock clearance were frustratingly ineffective. I finally sold it to a buddy who enjoys it more than I did. I have a few other Rugers, but that limited experience soured me on their bolt rifles.

I'm with you on that.

The mkII's were never push feed's. They were all CRF....

I had the exact same thing with a MKII 30/06, mine would jam when loading from the mag. I had my gunsmith mill off the bottom of the bolt and it functions great now.

You can see in the picture the piece that was left on I guess? The 7RM was a true CRF and the 30/06 had the push feed CR extraction feature I guess??? The 30/06 was bought new in 1992 and the 7RM was in 1995 or 1996.

For the uninitiated, which 77 tang models came with fixed sights, and wasn't there a model with fixed sights that would also accept Weaver-style bases?

At what point or model, did true CRF come to life in the 77?

Inquiring minds would like to know . . . .

In 1991 with the MKII:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_M77

Yes, they started out as round tops that were drilled and tapped like other rifles. My 270 is that way and it takes rem 700 bases...

Ruger m77 round top magnum (M77ST with open sights) chambered in 270 win:

When it comes to 77's and respect I think back to a couple members quote.

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 the trigger, but then a lot of factory rifles do.

The big problem I've seen with some of the tang-safety rifles is very long throats in some older chamberings, such as 7x57."

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."

Well I've put a fourth one on layaway down at the LGS, serial # dates it 1977, it'll be my first 30-06.
They've got respect in my safe!

I've owned 2 Mark II Rugers that were push feed. Both stainless boatpaddle stocks. One in 338 Win Mag and one 308 win

There were a some in the first year or two that they did not mill off the bottom edge of the bolt, making them push feed/CRF ejection hybrids.

If you send it back to Ruger, I think they will still mill the bolt bottom for you if asked.

I have one of the push feed Mark II's in 300 win mag. VERY accurate rifle. No reason to change. I will keep mine as it is.

bsa1917hunter is not correct in saying all mark II's were crf. There are plenty out there that are push feeds.

The very first MKIIs were push feed. Ruger used to convert them to CRF for free. My 250ai is built on one of those.

I've never had a bad Ruger. I've had a couple #1s that were beautiful and very accurate. At the moment I've got a tang safety Ruger 77RLS .30-06 that is simply the best rifle I've ever owned. I just bought a 77 Hawkeye .270 Winchester that should be here in a week. I've also got an SR-1911 and a 22/45 both of those are accurate and 100% reliable.

I really should get a 10/22 at some point.

it seems to me rugers get sufficient respect, just not on some gun boards. i read last year (in a gun rag) that only remington sold more center fire rifle than ruger in the last 10 years. as for the actual sales figures, i believe most gun manufacturers keep those numbers in house.

I own 3 of the LH stainless steel laminate Hawkeye's, a 25-06, 270 win and 300 win mag. I put lower power trigger springs in all three. I also floated and bedded the 25-06 and 300. All three rifles shoot 1/2" at 100 yds.

The only knock I have with them is the large bolt throw, small safety and sloppy feeling bolt.