Remington 700 vs Ruger M77


PDA






GunNut1976
January 9, 2011, 10:06 PM
Looking at buying one of these two rifles. I've considered most all of the 30-06s
on the market and I have it narrowed down to these 2. ya know weatherby used to make top of the line rifles but now they outsource almost all of their work and try to call themselves an american company. If money were an issue I'd probably go with a savage cuz I think thats really the best rifle for the price. Nothing else really jumped out at me. The remington 700 is the bolt action standard and Ruger is just an awesome company. I'm curious what everyone thinks. Could you please give me some info instead of just "Remington 700" or "Ruger is better". I'd actually like to know the differences between these 2 rifles. I'm told that the 700 is more popular but when it comes down to it it's mostly a personal preference thingas they are both great guns. All things being the same I'll go with the Ruger. They have the best customer service in the market and I love the fact that they're all american.

If you enjoyed reading about "Remington 700 vs Ruger M77" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rodregier
January 9, 2011, 10:49 PM
By way of background, I own a Ruger 77 and Savage 110 in centrefire bolt guns. If I buy another centrefire bolt gun I would probably go with a Stevens 200 (which is the Savage 110 re-labelled).

On the topic of "popularity" as opposed to pure technical merit:

If it's important to you there are a lot more aftermarkets parts for the Rem 700 than the Ruger 77 series. Likewise, there is a lot more gunsmith knowledge available for the Rem 700 than the Ruger 77.

The angled action screw system in the Ruger 77 scares some gunsmiths if you wanted to have it bedded to the stock.

jmr40
January 9, 2011, 11:02 PM
5 or 10 years ago I'd have said Remington all the way. Rugers have always been known for rugged reliability, but mediocre accuracy. Since they came out with the new Hawkeye and the new LC-6 trigger I'd put a Ruger up against a new Remington any day.

The Rugers are all steel construction with a proven rugged design. You may never need the controlled round feeding, but for the same money or less, why not. The push feed Remingtons work just fine most of the time, but I prefer the added insurance of a more rugged extraction and ejection system.

Rugers will be about $100 less and come with great factory scope mounts.

Lloyd Smale
January 10, 2011, 08:04 AM
personaly if i was buying a gun and it was going to be my only gun and i wanted to insure accuracy and have a good looking gun to be proud of it would be a remington 700. Savage is another good choise but there just not all that good looking but they do shoot. Not that rugers arent good guns but ive owned a bunch of them through the years and its alot more often that ive gotten a lemon when it came to accuracy with a ruger then i have with a rem sav or win. I know youve rulled out weatherbys but the vargurards are another one that are usually very accurate for the same money.

PT1911
January 10, 2011, 08:17 AM
Of the two, i would likely go with the 700, but that is mostly because if it did happen to have problems, i know a good smith who can fix whatever ailment it has and throw in a couple of extra goodies... Why would i choose the Remington over the Ruger? For me it comes down to potential accuracy for the money put into the gun... IMO, in factory rifles, nowadays, if one can afford to spend the money doing some accurizing work, the 700 action has such capability to be a sub .25 inch gun that it has to pull ahead in most races.

Honestly however, if i was looking at a new bolt actions in that price range, i would give the Tikka's a strong look, that would ultimately be my choice, but then Amercian made part isnt high on my list of musts...

Between the Ruger and Remington, i have little doubt you would be pleased no matter which you ultimately choose.

dagger dog
January 10, 2011, 11:15 AM
I was looking for a bolt gun in .308 Winchester caliber, and I considered the 700 Remington in the police version, but I wanted a 26" barrel, to be able to take full advantage of any handload that I was able to produce.

Was able to use a friends 700 PPS and quite frankly didn't like the trigger or the gun,it is dead accurate but I just didn't click with it! The bolt raceways were a little gritty along with the trigger, but this rifle was still pretty new.

I guess having the claw extractor and controlled round feed (although I installed a magazine cut off and shoot it single shot push feed style),Mauser type wing saftey, sold me on the Ruger. I sprung for the Target Varmint. IMO you can't find a better "stock" trigger, I was able to shoot some sub 1"@ 100yd 5 shot groups with my hand loads on the first trip. Lucky? Yeah maybe, getting that kind of bang for my buck on my first Ruger centerfire rifle.

Things I don't like about the Ruger, those damn integral scope mounts, it limits the optics! The RUGER TARGET GREY, I would much rather prefer a matte blue but couldn't get that in a heavy barrel configuration. That slanted forward action screw, I'm not saying it keeps you from glass bedding the stock but it not a DIY at least not for me.

Over all it is a hard pick between those two, I still don't own a bolt Remington (got two Savages) but I still plan to own a 700, just got to find the right one to follow me home.

SwampWolf
January 10, 2011, 01:53 PM
I've had Ruger Model 77s since the early seventies and have always been more than pleased with their reliability and accuracy. My only complaint over the years is that their triggers are on the heavy side (but the same can be said for a lot of bolt-action rifles made from the 1970s up until relatively recently). Contrary to dagger dog's complaint ("Things I don't like about the Ruger, those damn integral scope mounts, it limits the optics!"), I think the integral scope mount (and accompanying free rings) are a plus. Maybe my choice of scopes is a little less esoteric than dagger dog's is. :)

ColeK
January 10, 2011, 02:50 PM
I would go with the Ruger.
In the last 10 years I've bought 5 Rugers, 4 new & 1 used. All shot 1" - 1 1/4" the first time at the range. After a little work on thier triggers and handloads they were all sub-MOA rifles.

I can't say that about the Remingtons I've owned or still own.

Abel
January 10, 2011, 02:56 PM
Ruger.

pikid89
January 10, 2011, 03:05 PM
i have 4 rugers and one remington...just playing with them, the ruger seems much more refined. The bolt is a beast compared to the remington bolt. The extractor on the remington is just a little bitty blade inside the bolt head but the ruger extractor is a monster, grabbing like a quarter of the rim in a death grip...ive had issues with the remi extracting burst cases but the ruger always delivers even on the most stubborn cases
i dig the integral mounts on the ruger as well, one less spot for something to go wrong.
Ive no experience with the new LC6 trigger but a drop in timney on my mkIIs cured all my trigger woes

Red Tornado
January 10, 2011, 04:58 PM
Ford or Chevy?
RT

Craigman
January 10, 2011, 08:22 PM
Wow!!! actually some Ruger love here. I kinda thought nobody here like them any more. If you would have put one against a savage it would have been a landslide for the savage. Both are great IMHO
I love both my Rugers. 30-06 and a 243. The 243 is an older shiny stainless one and shoots like a laser beam to 200yds with anything i put through it. The 30-06 just looks and feels 'tough". Both shoot great with handloads tuned to their liking and have never let me down on a hunt.
On the other hand, Remingtons just seem too commercial or something to me. I owned one and sold it within a year. Maybe its just preference. It shot ok, just didn't feel great, and i didn't spend a whole lot of time on the load building.
Go hold both and see which one does it for you. They'll both be great hunters I'm sure

txgolfer45
January 10, 2011, 08:29 PM
I have a Remington 700 ADL in .270 and a Ruger M77 MKII in 30-06. I really like both of them. The 700 ADL is flat out accurate with sub MOA accuracy at 100 yds and your basick black synthetic stock and barrel. The Ruger is a little less accurate but more refined with nice wood and blued barrel and very smooth action. But, both are hunting rifles not bench rest competition rifles.

I like my 700 ADL better than the SPS model that replaced it.

dan3
January 10, 2011, 09:06 PM
Of the two, I'd go for the Ruger. I prefer the Ruger's action over the Remington. The "built in" scope mounts, free scope rings, controlled feed bolt...all seem to be a better deal. I like the Ruger stock design,etc... guess I'm just a Ruger fan !!

Welding Rod
January 11, 2011, 12:00 AM
I would go with the Ruger.

I like the beefy bottom metal and scope mount setup.

GuysModel94
January 11, 2011, 12:39 AM
GunNut: your info on the Wbys. is incorrect, it is true they purchase the barrels and receiver's from Howa,(for the Vanguards) but the guns are built and QA'd in the same factory that now builts the Mark V's. One rifle i would suggest is the Winchester Model 70, now made by FNH in South Caroline; they are getting great reviews.

Durty
January 11, 2011, 01:09 AM
I have a Ruger M77 chambered in 30-06. I also have 3 model 700s (none of which are 30-06). I like the Remingtons better than the Ruger. The controlled round feed is nice on the Ruger but I have never once had an issue with a Remington feeding ammo properly. I would never doubt anyone for buying a Ruger because mine shoots great. However, if I was to recommend one over the other, I will always recommend Remington. Fit and feel is so nice and they are so easily customizable if you ever want to make changes.

Coal Dragger
January 11, 2011, 01:29 AM
I would go with the Ruger.

1.) Ruger M77's just flat out work, and keep on working under adverse conditions.

2.) Since Ruger started hammer forging their own barrels, they tend to shoot well.

3.) Very solid integral scope mounts/rings, that are included with the rifle.

4.) Ruger's safety is superior to the Remington, and is more reliable.

5.) Controlled round feeding is a plus.

6.) Ruger fit and finish is consistently pretty good lately, Remington... not so much.

7.) Ruger is financially stable, Remington keeps changing ownership usually not for the better. Overall quality suffers due to this.

longdayjake
January 11, 2011, 11:29 AM
I own a hawkeye and an older mkII. THe lc6 trigger is a huge improvement over the mkII trigger, but either trigger is VERY easy to modify to get whatever weight and creep you prefer. I did some trigger work on the MKII that took about 15 minutes of polishing and just a tad bit of shaving. Then I cut down the trigger spring just a hair and now I have a 2# trigger. I was nervous about the accuracy of the rifle because all I had shot through it was military surplus and the accuracy was only about 2" at 100 yards. Then I decided to take it out and shoot some hunting loads that I made out of 180 grain Amax's. At 200 yards it shot pretty close to a 1" group. Granted that was just 5 shots, but I used military surplus 4895 pulldown powder that has never been very consistent for me. I was very surprised as the only reason I shot it at 200 yards was to see if the rifle could be good enough at 200 yards to shoot a deer.

I use the hawkeye in .223 to shoot rockchucks at 200 yards all day long. It probably has about 500 rounds of hornady vmax through it and another 500 of 55 grain fmj and it will shoot about 1" at 200 yards as well. Here are some videos of what it can do. The rifle in the video has an aftermarket stock that I freefloated. No bedding at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D1sOcPlkMA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvNs86iaf5I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFdf_4Sl5-k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7n-7QVLzxQ

george d dennis
January 11, 2011, 11:35 AM
ruger, had one since the 80s. wouldnt want anything else.

Fumbler
January 11, 2011, 02:56 PM
I'd pick the M77.

I have a bunch of friends with Rem 700 and I have yet to witness one shooting as well as people say (people claim "1MOA all day long"). That said, they aren't bad in accuracy and they have the potential to be real accurate rifles. Getting one trued and rebarreled should be easy. It's also easier to bed a 700 due to its simple round receiver and its action screws are perpendicular to the action.

If you're not going to do anything to the rifle then the M77 is better IMO. I've heard of Remington 700 extractors breaking but never in an M77. I mean come on; the 700 extractor is a circular piece of thin spring steel that's rivetted in place. A Sako style extractor mod is fairly common in the 700. Why should you have to switch extractor styles if the original one should work?
The M77 just looks and feels like a nicer gun to me. The machining is smoother in the ones I've handled and they operate smoother too. I also prefer the M77 safety over the M700.
The 700 just seems like it should cost less when you look at the machining and finishing involved.

The only downside to the M77 is accuracy. The ones I've seen usually shoot 1.25-1.5MOA after finding the ammo it likes. This is probably on par with a Rem 700 or maybe a little less accurate.

I like accuracy, smooth operation, and light weight...so i didn't get either of those rifles. I got a Tikka T3 instead ;)
My T3 lacks the soul of a nice wood and blued M77 though.

CoRoMo
January 11, 2011, 03:21 PM
Years ago, when I struck out to buy my first hunting rifle, I ended up at this very decision. I was looking at a 700 and a M77, both in .270 Winchester. I went with the Ruger, and have been 1,000% satisfied with it. It is wonderfully accurate. With just a couple rough attempts at working up a load, it was shooting inside of .73" right fast.

Looking back, I know that either rifle would have been fine, but with Ruger's bomb-proof ring/mount system, and the fact that they came with the rifle, I think that just puts them over the top.

A couple other minor aesthetic issues that fell in favor of my choice: The Ruger was satin finished walnut, where as the 700 was gloss laminated. The 700 had iron sights which were superfluous, the Ruger didn't have them. The 700 had a recessed muzzle, the Ruger had a crowned muzzle. The only thing the 700 had that the Ruger didn't, was a Monte Carlo stock, but I've been so happy with it, I'm not about to complain.

rowdy dodge
January 11, 2011, 03:35 PM
for the money and dependablity I choose RUGER. You get the rings with the ruger so dont have to purchase them. I have owned serveral remingtons over the years but now all my rifles are either ruger or mausers

rodregier
January 11, 2011, 11:19 PM
Ruger switched to hammer forged barrels for current production, so their factory rifle accuracy should be better than some were in the past.

I replaced the barrel and trigger on my older Ruger 77 MKII, and had it bedded by a local wizard in stock work.

With the current barrels and triggers Ruger is using, I probably would be satisfied with the factory versions in a new unit.

bambikilla
January 11, 2011, 11:22 PM
i think they are both good the 700 in a bull barrel is awesome kinda hard to get out a truck window though:)

68wj
January 12, 2011, 08:40 AM
I have never owned a 700 so I can't speak to their traits. I own 3 77s though. One of them did have a very tough trigger and I was not happy with it for a hunting rifle. A Timney trigger resolved that issue and it is now a joy to shoot. Friends that shoot it immediately comment on how crisp the pull is.

As far as accuracy, two of them will eat anything and produce nice little ragged holes in paper. One is finicky and prefers lighter weight bullets.

Asthetics, Ruger has always seemed to maintain classy lines and great looks. Completely subjective though.

gglass
January 12, 2011, 09:04 AM
Fumbler
I have a bunch of friends with Rem 700 and I have yet to witness one shooting as well as people say (people claim "1MOA all day long").

How about "1/4 MOA all day long" out of the box, with an unmodified Rem 700P. Maybe your friends should learn the art of the rifle. :p

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/1054/700pss20xsmall.jpg
Most of these groups were shot with a cheapo $80 Wal-Mart scope.
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/4566/5shotssgroup256moa.jpg
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/9749/prematch3shot0124moa.jpg
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/5774/prematch3shot0122moa.jpg
http://img574.imageshack.us/img574/6577/5shot230moa.jpg

fireside44
January 12, 2011, 09:10 AM
If money were an issue I'd probably go with a savage cuz I think thats really the best rifle for the price.

Your brain was trying to alert you to something here. With it's user serviceable barrel and lower cost as well as Savage's notoriety for out of box accuracy, I don't see why anyone would favor a Remington or Ruger myself.

Crosswind81
January 12, 2011, 09:28 AM
I recently bought my son a Ruger M77 in .270 and mounted a Nikon 3x9x40 on it sighted it in (well he did) and is is one fine rifle. I bought myself a Savage Model 116 Weather Warrior in 30.06 w/ Nikon 3x9x50 on it only because they had no more of the x40. We both love our rifles and in fact both took an 8 pt ea within 30 min of ea other last month. He loves the wood stock as I always have but I will tell you...the synthetic of the weather warrior is nice and I love the SS. Both are accurate and hold zero.

SlamFire1
January 12, 2011, 10:37 AM
I have a Ruger M77 Tactical. After I bedded it, it was as accurate as any target rifle I own.

M700's are excellent actions, I would remove the factory trigger from the older actions which the safety locks down the bolt handle. Too many accounts of accidental discharges when the safety is taken off.


M700 are easier to bed than Rugers. That stupid off perpendicular front action screw on a Ruger makes it difficult to bed the actions in the stock. The round bottom on the M700 is only a little easier.

RainDodger
January 12, 2011, 10:47 AM
In 50 years of shooting, Rugers have never been my favorite... they still aren't... but nevertheless there is one in my safe. One time about 15 years ago I traded something off (I forgot what it was) for an early, absolutely pristine, M77 in .30-'06. I only traded for it because it was as-new. I fully intended to use it as trading stock. Someone had put it in a Bell & Carlson synthetic stock, but the factory stock was with it.

I took it to the range after slapping a Leupold 3-7X on it, and proceeded to shoot better with it than any other .30-'06 I've had. Nope, not a target rifle, but I can hit what I shoot at with it. Very respectable groups and the trigger pull is very nice and clean with no creep.

That rifle will stay in the safe, as it's reliable, nice looking (great bluing!) and accurate.

Buy the rifle you like the best, that fits you the best. They're both fine rifles.

Roger

Fumbler
January 12, 2011, 01:37 PM
How about "1/4 MOA all day long" out of the box, with an unmodified Rem 700P. Maybe your friends should learn the art of the rifle.
I'm talking about sporter weight barreled rifles.

gglass
January 12, 2011, 08:29 PM
Ah! That explains a lot.

That being the case, my recommendation would lean toward the Weatherby Sub MOA line of rifles.

http://www.weatherby.com/product/rifles/vanguard/submoa_matte

CoastieShep
January 12, 2011, 08:47 PM
I've had 3 Rugers in .22 mag, .223 and .270. Still have the .270, got rid of the other 2 for money reasons that don't matter here. All 3 were accurate enough for me to hit what I was aiming at. Loved those rifles, wish I had the 2 back. No experience with the Remington though.

Ruger Redhawk
January 12, 2011, 09:18 PM
I have several of the M-77's. I still have a couple 700's and have sold some 700's over the years. I've always been satisfied with all my Ruger's. Granted they aren't bench rifles. For hunting reliability and accuracy my go to rifle is one of my Ruger's. Most of mine are the All Weather's. I do have a brand new Hawkeye that I haven't fired yet. It does have a better trigger then the MKII's. Someone who knows what they are doing can dress up the MKII's triggers.

HOOfan_1
January 13, 2011, 12:14 AM
Most of these groups were shot with a cheapo $80 Wal-Mart scope.


Is that a Super Sniper you replaced it with?

Coal Dragger
January 13, 2011, 03:20 PM
Sorry gglass, but we are talking about hunting rifles here not bull barreled target rifles running match ammo.

Show us some groups fired with say Nosler Partitions, or Accobonds at .30-06 velocities and see if you can claim 1/4 MOA all day long.

sansone
January 13, 2011, 03:27 PM
since you are asking 700 vs m77.... rem 700, because Ruger accuracy has been hit and miss lately. Say what you want about new rifles going down hill but Rem 700 is still made in NY and still shootin' under 1.5" groups when sand-bagged

jmr40
January 13, 2011, 03:35 PM
1.5" groups ain't nothing to brag about with today's rifles and ammo. That is typical of a bad Ruger. Many, many rifles out there that will easily do well under 1".

Accuracy is only 1 of many things to consider in a hunting rifle. If I wanted to build a target rifle I'd start with Remington. For a hunting rifle to be used in harsh conditions It would actually be Winchester, but Ruger wouldn't be far behind.

sansone
January 13, 2011, 03:45 PM
not braggin about 1.5" groups, just stating honest figures with cheap factory ammo. The OP is asking us to compare 2 rifles. I'm OK with Rugers but have heard too many accuracy complaints lately

If you enjoyed reading about "Remington 700 vs Ruger M77" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!