Rifle - Ruger M77:
I never hear anyone mention the Ruger 77. I handled a heavy varmint version in 308. The bolt cycled smooth and the rifle felt good to me. How far off from a Remington 700 is it?
Northern, Ohio USA - Friday, December 18, 1998 at 02:09:18 (EST)
In the last course I attended, there was 4 '77s. One VLE, two VTs (one 223, one 308), and one old 77 (not Mark II). All shot sub-MOA, even with the crappy ammo provided.
Bruce Braxton <email@example.com>
College Park, GA USA - Friday, December 18, 1998 at 17:21:28 (EST)
I'm a competitive handgunner making the switch to long range rifle, so bear with me here. Also, if anyone has a handgun related question, please e-mail me and I woul be happy to help you out!
R. Horn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Houston, Texas, USA - Monday, January 25, 1999 at 02:12:49 (ZULU)
Central, Ny, USA - Monday, January 25, 1999 at 04:02:36 (ZULU)
If "It" shoots that good, and does so consistently to your maximum extreme range of engagement you may be content. In a nutshell, shoot the heck out of it, get good, and be happy with the rifle and just work to improve your skills.
Big City, bY-gAwD, USA - Monday, January 25, 1999 at 16:37:53 (ZULU)
I have a friend that has a Ruger 77. It couldn't do much better than 2 or 3 inches at 100 yards, so he sent it back. Ruger returned it and said it looked OK to them, their specs are 1.5" at 50 yards or something like that. He mic'ed the bore and found out it widened from breach to muzzle.
The Ruger 77s don't have a great reputation for accuracy from what
I've heard, even with a lot of help from a competent gunsmith. An occasional
specimen will shoot well, but in general they don't keep up. All I can
suggest is to take yours to the range and see what it can do.
Richmond, CA, USA - Friday, February 05, 1999 at 21:19:13 (ZULU)
I have a heavy barrel Ruger 77V in .308 caliber that I use as a back-up weapon for my Remington PSS. I shoot it occasionaly to stay in touch with the trigger pull, but I have to say, that it is not "sniper grade" by any definition. The best group that I have been able to get out of it is 1.25 inches at 100 yards. I consider this piss poor for a sniper weapon. My PSS will shoot .5 all day long. I have heard horror stories about the accuracy of Rugers. Try yours and see how it does. When you get tired of trying to shoot straight with it, get a Remington.
Randy Stoddard <email@example.com>
PC, Oklahoma, USA - Saturday, February 06, 1999 at 10:04:42 (ZULU)
A Post to The Ruger Bashers: Two of my friends and myself own Ruger M77MKIIVT's, two in .308 and one in .220 Swift. All three rifles are capable of shooting 10 round groups at 0.5 MOA with the "right" loads, from the bench or bipod, when we marksmen do our part. Maybe we have the only Rugers in captivity that shoot well, but I doubt it. And, to the caliber sensitive folk, please remember or be advised, that the marksmanship portion of the 1995 NATO sniper match was won by the Bayerische Staat Polizei, (Bavarian State Police) using German manufactured Sauer rifles in 7mm Magnum. Remember, it's not the weapon, but rather the man behind it that makes the real difference.
Mike O'Brien <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Evansville, WY, USA - Sunday, February 07, 1999 at 03:40:23 (ZULU)
Boonies of the Panhandle, Texas, USA - Sunday, February 07, 1999 at 04:42:57 (ZULU)
I agree whole heartedly that it is the man behind the weapon who
ultimately makes the 0.5 moa or less shot look easy, but you have to reduce
the variables of the weapon itself for it to make this shot everytime it
counts, and one of the biggest variables is the manufacturing tolerances
held on the barrel. Every manufacturer has to hold their internal barrel
tolerances within SAAMI specifications, the closer to minimum, the better.
As a barrelmaker, I have seen many different barrels from many different
manufacturers and I will say that Ruger holds the loosest and most inconsistent
specs on their internal barrel tolerances that I have seen from any major
arms manufacturer. My brother in law owns a Ruger M77 in 30-06, swears
by it, kills his deer every year, one shot. But that is a 10" kill zone.
I have a Remington 700 300 Win Mag in an H-S Precision vertical grip stock,
H-S precision barrel made by yours truly. We built a 300 yd range, benches
at 1,2, and 300 yds, and he shoots his Ruger on a regular basis, had never
shot mine before. When we zero at 100 yds, both using 165 grain Sierra
Gamekings, his spread is 1.75" with the Ruger. He uses the H-S gun and
shoots a 5 shot spread inside his Ruger's, about .65" or so. Now you tell
me the difference between a good or bad barrel. Well he told me. He said
and I agree that a Ruger is fine if you are hunting deer, but to put a
group on paper, a Ruger barrel isn't the one of choice. 200 yds definitely
told the story, both guns are zeroed at 200 yds, the Ruger would not hold
any group as the good barrel held its own. This is my latest experience
with the Ruger M77, don't trust it, won't own one.
Our ballistician told me one time that the only way a Ruger barrel will shoot is if you never clean the barrel, also said they made a great crowbar, and I agree.
rapid city, sd, USA - Sunday, February 07, 1999 at 04:49:48 (ZULU)
Conyers, Georgia, USA - Sunday, February 07, 1999 at 06:40:49 (ZULU)
Mr. O'BOPM-DUDE, no flame meant SIR!
Ruuhh, They do not even compare to a Sauer rifle does a Pacer compare to a Mercedes?
Does a 77/.22 OEM trigger compare to an Anshutz or Walther?
Is that .5 MOA at 100 yards or 500, factory or handloads, three shot groups, five shot groups, ten shot groups? I concur with "end-user" aspect, but has any major agency adopted the Ruuugg..... for tactical use?
bIG cITY, bY-gAWD, USA - Sunday, February 07, 1999 at 15:20:45 (ZULU)
I was disatisfied with the groups I was getting and called Ruger. Their 'requirements' were that it shoot under 1.5" @ 100 yds. I told them that was a 'pattern,' not a group. They said that if I was dis-satisfied to return it. It went out the next day. I got it back shortly, they had replaced the bolt which solved the extraction problem I had but had not mentioned. They informed me the 'tech' had gotten a 1" group. When I asked what range, they said, 'Ours...' I finally weaseled out of them that it was Federal match ammo at 50 YARDS! I was so dumbfounded that I forgot to ask but I am sure it was a 3 shot group.
I still like Rugers, why I don't know, maybe because I have so many, BUT I now have an AR10-(T)and am working on it.
Ruger is a Chevrolet... It is a good functional hunting rifle that
most folks can afford. I guess if you want a 'Sniper,' (read Cadilac),
it will cost a little more.
Boonies of the Panhandle, Texas, USA - Sunday, February 07, 1999 at 15:33:28 (ZULU)
To compare a $449 box stock Ruger 77 to any high precision rifle [HS Precision] for example, well, just ain't fair to either gun. An operator that bets his life, and the life of his mates, on the ability to take one shot and make one shot needs the highest quality he can afford. As a *field* gun though, I assure you that if you are familiar with the gun you are shooting, and have pushed the several thousand rounds through it you should, the difference between a .5 moa and a 1 moa gun at 3 or 4 football fields is lost on 'yotes and the like. Dead is dead.
I have no reason to believe that what has been posted here regarding the Ruger barrel tolerance is anything but true. I am not in that profession, so I will not argue about it. What I do know, and what I see all the time, is people going to the field with guns that they don't need, because they cannot shoot. I always recall in debates like this what my grandfather said over and over and over again to us boys growing up "the gun can't hunt for you". As a kid I was so damned envious of the custom carrying hunters as I would listen to them chat about rifles. Most of them, I learned later, sat with unfilled tags. My old 06 was in the truck somewhere, the meat was home hanging in a tree.
With that said, would I prefer a precision rifle over a scarred up Ruger 77? Absolutely. Do the varmits care? Well, they don't seem to care much about that inch or two:)
USA - Sunday, February 07, 1999 at 15:46:15 (ZULU)
Fairfield, IA, USA - Monday, February 08, 1999 at 13:16:46 (ZULU)
Sunny, Deep South, USA - Tuesday, February 09, 1999 at 04:48:27 (ZULU)
MI, USA - Wednesday, February 10, 1999 at 00:26:32 (ZULU)
Al Ostapowicz (Fly-Boy) <email@example.com>
Back on your butts again in an obnoxious state of , Ohio, USA - Wednesday, February 10, 1999 at 03:35:22 (ZULU)
The UnDude Mike
Mike M. <DMMDNLN@AOL.COM>
Calif., USA - Wednesday, February 10, 1999 at 05:10:36 (ZULU)
As with the Savage dispute earlier, I really don't care what others opinions are concerning these rifles; it is the results that count.
The owner of Master Class Stocks in Bellwood, PA has told me the real reason that you see very few Ruger actioned competition rifles has nothing to do with the quality of the action. They are as strong, or stronger than their competition, and flex about the same, maybe less due to the nature of the investment castings from which they are made. In case anyone thinks that system is unacceptable, consult a metallurgist, he will tell you the only thing stronger than an investment casting is a drop forging, and this is only true if the drop forging is properly heat treated. Investment castings are inherently stress-free, even machined parts have a tough time in that regard. The real reason for avoiding them is two-fold, the receiver is so hard that machining it is very difficult, and bedding them, due to the angled action screw, is very difficult. Most of the garbage you read about them is just that, garbage.
Let us be honest here, if you don't like the products don't buy them, but do not say they are not a quality product; that is simply not true. I defy anyone to show me a stronger, safer action than theirs, both in handguns and rifles. The only competition they have in handguns is Freedom Arms. Price one of those recently?
If you find the No.1 attractive, buy it and enjoy. There are few
actions that are equally as pleasing to look at and function as smoothly.
It may take a little time at the reloading bench to find the ideal load,
but then again it may shoot straight from the box.
Fred Fischer <frederick_c_fischer>
People's Rep. of, MD, USA - Wednesday, February 10, 1999 at 15:55:11 (ZULU)
Now some of you will be mad, but show me the groups and I don't mean 3 shots at 100 yards, after the bore has been fouled.
Mike M. <DMMDNLN@AOL.COM>
Calif, USA - Wednesday, February 10, 1999 at 16:20:51 (ZULU)
I would be interested in anyone out there producing published testing
data that shows the Ruger action flexs to the point that it inhibits accuracy.
People's Rep. of, MD, USA - Wednesday, February 10, 1999 at 18:07:23 (ZULU)
bIG-bIG-cITY, bY-gAwD, USA - Wednesday, February 10, 1999 at 18:38:17 (ZULU)
Do you know how many of those Ruger Palma rifles were used in the Palma Match? A lot of hype and free advertising went down on that rifle. The barrels were beyond belief. I borescoped one and nearly got sick!
If my old memery serves me properly, only two Ruger rifles were used in the Palma match. These rifles had nice stocks, actions with conventional bedding screws, great sights, good triggers, but the barrels were strictly third rate. I'm pretty sure one of the Ruger rifles used in the match had the original barrel. The other rifle may have been fitted with a new stainless barrel after being received by the Palma team.
This forced many of the team members to use their course rifles in the Palma. Not a very good situation, really.
Not trying to burst your bubbles........just history as I recall it.
Ruger makes great utility rifles. The real shining star is the little 10-22. With a decent barrel they will give the finest Anschutz a real run.
Bill Wylde <firstname.lastname@example.org>
WARM - SE, IL, USA - Wednesday, February 10, 1999 at 19:50:04 (ZULU)
USA - Wednesday, February 10, 1999 at 20:58:39 (ZULU)
My point is that there seems to be a propensity to knock these rifles, not based on fact, but on perceptions that are not necessarily true. Yes, I have seen these rifles with bad triggers, but I've seen Remingtons and Winchesters with terrible triggers as well. I own and have shot Rugers that do as well out of the box as anyone else's products. I've read of Remington PSS models that were in the author's words, "unacceptable". I recently had to return a Winchester Model 70 Super Express .375 H&H because the barrel was not square on the receiver. Why is it that we tacitly "accept" this sort of thing by the Big 2, send them off for repair, replacement, whatever, yet if a Ruger is similar in its problems, it is declared junk. Perhaps some of us do not recall when Win and Rem were producing, by today's standards, junk. For those of you that do not recall, do the words "post '64" mean anything? At that time, pressed checkering, lousy wood, and lousy finish work was the norm.
Unfortunately, product liability has severely affected the quality of any of the manufacturers triggers now installed on their products. You want reasonable pull weight, go see a 'smith, any problems after that, don't call the manufacturer, you'll need a lawyer. At the just completed SHOT Show, Harold Rolls and I inspected a really nice Winchester Low Wall chambered in .22 LR. It was a little beauty, with a trigger I would estimate at about 10 pounds, but of course it was tough to estimate since it felt like it was stuffed with sand. No manufacturer's products are immune, all I am saying here is to give these rifles the same respect we give other manufacturers. I seem to recall there was a spirited defense of Savage by several men last year on this forum, many felt they offer a lot for the money. I personally believe Ruger offers at least as much value, and controlled feed besides.
People's Rep. of , MD, USA - Wednesday, February 10, 1999 at 21:05:52 (ZULU)
American Rifleman had an article about the rifles. The Palma barrels were made by Green Mountain- whoever they are. Hard to believe isn't it? As of a several years ago Wilson made all of Ruger's barrels. Don't know that is the case now or not. This is a different Wilson than the one that makes quality handgun barrels.
Stuart Otteson wrote the action rigidity article for "Rifle" magazine. He was an engineer and authored "The Bolt Action". Frank de Haas (correct spelling) was a gunsmith and the author of "Bolt Action Rifles" and wrote gunsmithing articles for American Rifleman. Mark de Haas, Frank's son, won the Leech Cup (1000 yds, iron sights) at Camp Perry in 1966, and was a sniper in Vietnam.
You are correct about the Remington being the weaker of the two actions in the vertical plane. I also posted this to the forum quite a while ago.
Re: Bill Ruger
I remember back in the '70s when the mini-14 came out. Bill said that he would ONLY sell it to military and law enforcement. The tone of his interview was to the effect that: "citizens have no business with military type rifles". Sales failed to materialize and he soon had to eat his words. That statement still sticks in my craw after 25 plus years. I don't think he is a real good friend of shooters.
That's all for now.
Ron N. <email@example.com>
USA - Thursday, February 11, 1999 at 01:24:28 (ZULU)
Al Ostapowicz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sittin' Here happy as a clam in the Merry of State of , Ohi-er, USA - Thursday, February 11, 1999 at 01:37:11 (ZULU)
I discussed the Ruger 'Palma' rifles with a couple of Palma and Hipower shooters, one of which assists in the running of the matches. I also talked to a couple of the people at the Whittington Center about the Rugers. The barrels were made by Green Mountain. The only place I have heard of them otherwise is for muzzle loading rifles. I was told the barrels were so shoddy that they would 'shoot out' while trying to break them in. Consequently, they weren't used in most cases. Add to the problem that they were delivered too late for load developement and breakin.
I have also been told by a barrel manufacturer in Raton, and others, that until recently, Ruger did NOT make their own barrels. I believe they ahve started doing so now. That MAY improve quality.
I've gotta lot of Rugers and I love'em, but they ain't target rifles...
Boonies of the Panhandle, Texas, USA - Thursday, February 11, 1999 at 02:52:01 (ZULU)
I my self have many Ruger guns and they all shoot well except for
a couple of them. The 10/22 is a tack driver the Mini 14 & 30 are a
joke 3 inches a 100 if I am lucky and I also have a MK 77/22 mag with the
heavy barrel it is a very accurate gun for a .22 mag and will shoot sub
1 MOA at 100 yards but is very ammo sensitive any bullet weight change
in grains will affect point of impact by as much as 8" inches at 100 yards
verticle and horizontal not good. I just picked up a M 77 MK II in .270
and will see how is shoots against my Remington 700 ADL Synthetic in 30-06
the Remington with the medium barrel will put 150 grain bullets in sub
1 MOA all day long every day at 100 yards. I tested my Remington with 3
shot groups 5 times in a row for an average. Overall the triggers on the
Rugers are good except the mini 14 & 30 are junk. I am looking forward
to getting a model 70 varmit in .223 in the near future to keep the coyote
population down in my hunting area. I hope the quality controll on my new
Ruger .270 is up to snuff and if it does not shoot as well as my Remingtom
I will be selling it.
Woodbury, MN, USA - Thursday, February 11, 1999 at 04:43:00 (ZULU)
Germany - Thursday, February 11, 1999 at 08:50:34 (ZULU)
USA - Thursday, February 11, 1999 at 17:12:50 (ZULU)
I have very small experience with them and have not been real impressed with their bolt guns for accuracy. But like every brand on the market, EVERY single one, their performance seems to be pretty subjective and individualistic. I hope to end the topic with this: Like others, Ruger rifles have the potential to shoot well. But by their design (Bedding, barrels, blah blah blah) they have been less accepted in the precision shooting community than other rifles. A "why fight the bedding when brand X is already squared away" mentality exists. Does this make a Ruger owner stupid? No, and I think that is where this subject has gained its Legs. Everyone seems a little defensive on both sides of the topic.
For CONSISTENT precision shooting and sniping, the ruger isn't top choice. So what? As a civilian you can still use one effectively for your purposes.
You can only afford ONE rifle in your life? It has to do it all? Then don't buy the Ruger. You have options aplenty.
The reason we don't talk about Ruger possitively here is because the above topics (precision shooting...) rule #1 on this site. If this were Hunting Country, Ruger might be bandied about a lot in a positive light. It works for fine that endeavor and the ranges involved. If you have one that meets your standard, what ever that may be, rejoice. If you hate them, try not to bust on those that like them. They may not have the same experience as you or even share the same need/standard.
I think it can be obviously stated with out too much argument that no police or military force, upon doing serious homework, would make an M77 in any configuration a first choice for their duty rifle. There are other alternatives that are ODDs-on a better capitol risk. Is this bashing? I do not think so. It still has it's place.
But don't get me on the Mini-14 or you WILL see some bashing! ;-)
USA - Thursday, February 11, 1999 at 18:01:03 (ZULU)
Cold, By-Gawd, MN, USA - Thursday, February 18, 1999 at 00:30:18 (ZULU)
Back to Hot Tips & Cold Shots