Finally! Ruger has a 357 mag bolt rifle!

I can't even express how I feel about this. Went to the ruger website for a good look at their sr9 out of curiosity and what do I see? An advertisement for there new 77/357 rifle. A bolt action obviously designed aroung their model 77 bolt rifle in a carbine style short barrelled rifle. This is great considering that the lever guns in 357 are so hard to find around here. A bolt rifle is pretty cool in this cartridge in my opinion. I guess I just wanted to share the good news... Bill

No biggie. We all do that once in a while. :)

I do wonder if they'll use the short-action receiver in that model line. :p

The whole point of .357 in a rifle is to have decent ballistics with higher magazine capacity and faster handling characteristics than the more powerful rifle cartridges. This is why lever actions are the platform.

This thing is worthless, IMO. When left to develop a new product without ripping off another manufacturer's design, Ruger is seriously coming up short.

The whole point of .357 in a rifle is to have decent ballistics with higher magazine capacity and faster handling characteristics than the more powerful rifle cartridges. This is why lever actions are the platform.

I agree with you to an extent, but you could just as easily argue that the point of a .357 rifle is to have a light, low-recoiling long gun that uses the same round as a sidearm. If that's the goal than Ruger has succeeded. Calling it "worthless" because it fit doesn't your particular definition of what the rifle should do is stretching it.

People buy guns to buy guns. Weather they "need" a certain gun is a non issue to many people. I don't think Ruger would be in business if they didn't study their market to determine what would sell. For those who like bolt rifles and reload 357 already, it probably would make a fun addition to their collection. I had all of the guns I needed 40 years ago. I acquired the rest of my guns because I wanted them, and I enjoy them every day.

I'm a bit torn on this one.

I have four .357 revolvers and a Winchester Trapper in .357 also...So a .357 bolt-gun would seem to be a natural "fit" for my safe. But a 5-shot .357 carbine retailing at $793 -- I dunno...

I'll be following the discussions on this carbine here and on other forums to see if a justification "sings out to me." :)


.

Calling it "worthless" because it fit doesn't your particular definition of what the rifle should do is stretching it.

Hence the "IMO". If it floats someone elses boat, great.

I don't think Ruger would be in business if they didn't study their market to determine what would sell.

The history of discontinued firearms and chamberings would suggest that their research team is lacking. Ruger has a few staple firearms that keep them in business (10/22, M77, No.1, single-six, MK I/II/III, P85, Blackhawk, Redhawk, SP-101, GP-100). Most of the rest have had unspectacular sales. The mini used to fit in the former category, but with it's price increase leaving it to compete with AR's, it has been pretty much relegated to the status of "still produced because the tooling exists". Their only really successful designs of late weren't their designs at all.

I used to really like Ruger, but have since discovered that there are few things they make that someone else doesn't do better. However, it was experience with their "customer service" (lack thereof) that really left a sour taste in my mouth. I have half a dozen Rugers, that number is very unlikely to increase before I die (and I'm only 29)

sorry about the duplicate post. I had not seen the original

Happens when folks don't title their posts with info on what the post contains...

Not really a surprise given the 77/44 has been made. Now if they had made it for the .357 Max that would of been nice.

Maybe they'll someday offer it in walnut or laminate for the wood lovers.

Ruger seems to be really digging
I had a bolt action shotgun in the 50's-- I got rid of it fast for an auto.
I wouls rather have seen a deerfield auto 357 in lieu of a bolt action.
well, only sales total will tell.

Could be very cool ... if they have a fast-twist barrel so you can load a very heavy .358 cast bullet (210+ gr. or better) subsonic, and add a silencer.

Just like what the 77/44 would be very good for!

Hence the "IMO". If it floats someone elses boat, great.



The history of discontinued firearms and chamberings would suggest that their research team is lacking. Ruger has a few staple firearms that keep them in business (10/22, M77, No.1, single-six, MK I/II/III, P85, Blackhawk, Redhawk, SP-101, GP-100). Most of the rest have had unspectacular sales. The mini used to fit in the former category, but with it's price increase leaving it to compete with AR's, it has been pretty much relegated to the status of "still produced because the tooling exists". Their only really successful designs of late weren't their designs at all.

I used to really like Ruger, but have since discovered that there are few things they make that someone else doesn't do better. However, it was experience with their "customer service" (lack thereof) that really left a sour taste in my mouth. I have half a dozen Rugers, that number is very unlikely to increase before I die (and I'm only 29)
That actually looks like a pretty good list of firearms that Ruger has. Also, left off the list are the LCR and LCP, which I think are selling pretty well. Whether the LCP is a Kel-tec clone or not, they are not in violation of any patents and it is selling well.

Which firearm manufacturer has a more complete line of firearms that sell well?

There appears to be a market for the NEF single shot rifles in .357 so the market for bolt action .357 rifles may well exist too.

I'm seeing references to 1:16 twist which isn't as fast as it could be but should be enough for 180's.

At this moment I am looking at about 2,000 empty .357 cases I'm in the process of cleaning and priming. There's only so much shooting you can do with the short guns, so maybe it's time to get a big box of Oregon Trail slugs, one of these carbines and see what it can do.

I think if the price point were around $500-$600 they'd sell a lot more to folks willing to pick them up for truck, ranch, camp, or plinking guns.

I love the .357 round and probably have more guns chambered in that round than the average bear. However, other than the whole "carry one ammo" arguement, I find the gun "near" worthless as well....If I'm gonna tote around a fullsize centerfire, I might as well have more power and range with the round that goes in it.

The history of discontinued firearms and chamberings would suggest that their research team is lacking. Ruger has a few staple firearms that keep them in business (10/22, M77, No.1, single-six, MK I/II/III, P85, Blackhawk, Redhawk, SP-101, GP-100). Most of the rest have had unspectacular sales

No offense but what does Winchester make now, How bout remington? Savage, Marlin. Rugers lineup of products is truly staggering when you compare it to the one trick pony other rifle makers Even your little list is about twice as long as these other lazy manufacturers nobody seems to want to lambaste.

How &^%&& long has it been since rem or wichester introduced something new? Here's a hint Eisenhower was president


And you guys really really need to learn the difference between MSRP and retail price. I bought a new 77/44 last month and only paid $580 tax and all OTD

Go ruger, I hope they introduce a plethora of absolutely usless and redundant chamberings for this most handy sized actions

...If I'm gonna tote around a fullsize centerfire, I might as well have more power and range with the round that goes in it.
This isn't a full sized gun the action used is only slightly larger than one for a .22LR and a LOT smaller and lighter than a 1895

These are even smaller than the CZ527 mini mauser action

I agree with Dale. I read that post and thought the exact same thing. Which company is doing better than Ruger? The only one that I can think of that comes close is S&W. Even then, the only rifle they offer is the AR.

I'm just happy a modern manufacturer has produced a centerfire bolt action rifle with iron sites you realy don't see that much anymore but I see this gun appealing to the brush hunting crowd.

I've been thinking about breaking my C+R buying streak with a Lefty Ruger GunSite Scout...so at that rate, maybe they'll offer this 77/357 in lefty in a year or two.

This would be a great platform for 7.62x25 Tok as well.

I like the idea, I've been loading the .357 for 20 years, I would like it better if it were in the $4-500 range. If they ever make one that was blue steel and walnut rather than stainless and plastic I might just be swayed enough to buy one, but for me plastic parts on my guns are a deal breaker.

This thing is worthless, IMO. When left to develop a new product without ripping off another manufacturer's design, Ruger is seriously coming up short.I'd take a light weight bolt action over a lever action. A detachable magazine is a plus also.

I like this concept. I'm very disappointed that they chose to use the awful sights from the 10/22 instead of the much better sights from the Mini-14/Ranch Rifle. At least it includes scope rings. I would also shorten the barrel a bit since .357 Magnum isn't gaining much from 16" to 18". I would like to see 16.2" or so. It's not hard for them to make the barrel a bit longer for Canadian sales if it's needed.

not living in one of those states I can't be sure, but wouldn't this be right up some one's ally if they live in one of the places that only lets people use rifles in pistol cartridges? I was thinking of a .357 lever just in case i ever move to one, but with this, I would have to rethink that strategy. after i let others work out the kinks of course.

If I'm gonna tote around a fullsize centerfire

At least per the specs I've seen, this is not a full size rifle but a compact version with a rotary mag, short bolt throw and light weight.

The questions in my mind are how easily the irons can be upgraded and how well it totes. I'm not seeing much purpose in a scope on it, but nice quality peep would work

Well, the Rossi 92 is a touch lighter at 5.0 lbs with a 20 inch barrel or 4.8 lbs with a 16 inch for a .38/.357 Mag option. At 5.5 this Ruger rifle is a half to .7 lbs more.

I'm a big lever gun fan myself but I can see why if I like levers more that some folks would like bolt actions more. So for a light close in tight woods hunting gun for smaller deer or bigger varmints I can see this being a decent enough seller.

I suspect that if it doesn't do well it'll be because of the price point. At $840 MSRP it's a healthy $300 over the MSRP of a Rossi lever rifle that takes the same round. Never mind the bolt vs lever argument. The money argument is going to win out.

Serious varmint and small game hunters are going to opt for other calibers that reach out faster and longer with flatter trajectories. That leaves this rifle and it's brother chambered in .44Mag to those with primarily handgun intrests that want to plink or dabble in hunting using the same rounds. As one of that group I'd be looking at the obvious choice for me of a lever rifle or for others perhaps the idea of the stupidly inexpensive NEF single shot would attract them. Either way they'd have to really like bolt rifles to splurge on one of these.

Just looking over the handgun caliber 77's a bit more I had to shake my head at the cost of the 77 in .22LR. First of all they are obviously using the same barrel blanks so the weight is getting up there. Comparing them to the CZ bolt .22's they are roughly a half pound heavier.

But the kicker is the price. They are a good $370 to $460 more than the bolt action CZ's. And from all I've read the CZ's have a stirling reputation for being solid and very tightly accurate. So again it seems as though Ruger has priced their 77's out of the market at these handgun caliber models.

i like any pistol cal carbine but in this case i'll wait for the used price. and in response to an earlier post i like it when people think something i fancy is worthless,demand goes down supply goes up prices go down. we should have a poll; am i cheap or frugal? i vote cheap

Just be sure you look at actual selling prices. Ruger tends to provide optimistic MSRP numbers but the guns typically sell for a lot less - maybe 70-75% of MSRP on average - as long as you do at least minimal shopping around.

A Redhawk in .357 magnum would be a nice addition by Ruger. I would
like to have this rifle, but the price is just more than I would want to
spend for this particular rifle.

Ok...For you guys that corrected me that the gun isn't "fullsize"...I guess I should have said "long gun".....I had a Ruger .44 carbine years ago. I didn't find the pistol in a rifle concept all that wonderful. Sure, I could shoot it more accurate than a handgun, but it still lacked the power/distance/accuracy I could have had with a rifle round. I guess that is why I say I had one. The only thing I regret about letting it go is not holding on to it for a few more years to sell it for more $$. With all that said, if I didn't like a .44, I doubt if I would care for a long gun in .357.........Of course this is one fool's opinion. By the looks of the posts, lots of you guys like the idea.

Because I'm in Canada the final shelf price on Rugers tends to work out to very close to the MSRP. And the Rossi I got for shooting Cowboy Action was about the same.

I'm assuming that down south of the 49th similar pricing on the Rossis being discounted slightly would result in the cost difference remaining the same or close to it such that for the "privilage" of shooting a bolt gun over a lever the cost would still be somewhere around $200.

I posted on the other thread, but I'll weigh in here, too. I like the idea, but like others, would prefer a blue and walnut version. I think this would be a great plinker loaded light. No doubt this is really a toy for reloaders, as that would be the way to maximize the versatility of the gun. Wouldn't be my first choice for a hunting rifle, but it would do the job in the eastern hardwoods.

Like the idea of a suppressed version, but if that were really the objective, think I'd opt for the 77/44; think subsonic 300 grain solid! Wow!

Kind of like a bolt action 30-30; just never saw the reason behind it.

think it will make a decent rifle. love my ruger m77/44 . killer lil gun. I would think the same about it in a 357 mag.killed a few deer with my colt python 357 mag. Rifle should do much better as long as you pick your shots and stay within range.

I don't see a purpose for it. Everything this rifle can do an 1894 can do better.

I was hoping Ruger would do this. It makes sense. The mini-length 77 action, as used for .22 Hornet and .44 Magnum, is a natural for .357 Magnum.

If I ran the circus the rifle would have ended up half a pound lighter, and would have had a peep sight on the back and an ear protected blade sight on the front. Larger magazines would have been offered as an option.

Of what use is a .357 carbine? It gets full value (http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html) from the ammunition, shots tend to be better placed than with a revolver, and straight walled, rimmed cases are how handloaders define 'easy.'

Any word on accuracy?

J Mcleod,

I disagree.

The 77/357 would be more durable, more reliable, and more accurate. If you care to argue that, don't bother. A good bolt action rifle will always exceed any lever action gun in these areas.

The only thing that a lever action would have over a bolt action rifle would be that the lever action would be much faster with follow up shots. That is the only area the Marlin would beat the 77/357.

A few uses for it that come to mind:
-States that don't allow for rifle caliber hunting
-Recoil sensitive hunters
-Inexpensive bolt rifle practice
-Truck gun
-homeland security in the commie states.

MSRP on my Scout rifle was $999. Retail here is closer to $700. My guess is that it will actually retail for under $600.

I don't see a purpose for it. Everything this rifle can do an 1894 can do better.

1894s are pretty rare right now, though.

If I had money, I'd give it a try. It looks fun.

There are several valid reasons to select one of these over a levergun not least of which is to unload the 77 EVERY round doesn't have to be ran through the action and you have an excellent three position safety vs the afterthought safety mechanism found on leverguns.


As to comparisons to the ROSSI forget it. I owned a Rossi in 357 and it was very much a "u finish it" kit gun that's crudeness was only surpassed by it's unreliability.

Tapatalk post via IPhone.

I'm curious about something (and this isn't directed at anyone in particular). Often, when a new gun hits the market a sizeable chunk of the gun crowd objects and essentially calls it useless or impractical.

If it was all about practicality, no one would ever own anything besides one .22 LR, one repeating 12 ga shotgun, and one .30-06 rifle.

Sometimes it's about style and doing things a little differently than usual.

I can see the utility in a lever-action .357 carbine. I can see more in a .41 or .44 magnum. I can see almost as much in a .45 Colt cowboy carbine.
Trapper length, please.

But a turnbolt .357 magnum? Really? I mean...Really?

What's it for? What can it do that a lever-action can't do better?

If it's any consolation, I said the same thing about the 77/44.

What can it do that a lever-action can't do better?

Nothing. Some people just prefer bolt actions.

I can see it for a bolt action fan who also has a ton of .357 mag ammo lying around.

I can't wait to see some range reports of how accurate it is with out of the box ammo.

I'm curious about something (and this isn't directed at anyone in particular). Often, when a new gun hits the market a sizeable chunk of the gun crowd objects and essentially calls it useless or impractical.

If it was all about practicality, no one would ever own anything besides one .22 LR, one repeating 12 ga shotgun, and one .30-06 rifle.

Sometimes it's about style and doing things a little differently than usual.

EXACTLY because by the same reasoning ANY and ALL rifle cartridges that aren't 223, 30/06 and .375h&h are completely useless


Tapatalk post via IPhone.

I was just thinking the other how fun a .357 bolt gun would be. For personal reasons. I'm pretty stoked...

Oh, I prefer bolt-actions myself...in bolt-action calibers. I don't even own a semi-auto rifle any more.

I dunno...

The same rifle can be had in .44 Magnum. A much more suitable round for medium game.
The same caliber can be had in a levergun. Which is faster, and it has the advantage of topping off without taking it out of battery.

I keep coming back to that nagging question:

What's it for?

Oh, I prefer bolt-actions myself...in bolt-action calibers.

The way I look at it is like a more versatile .22 mag bolt action. With 125 grain loads, the .357 will break 2k out of a carbine making it more than adequate for vaporizing varmints out to 100 yards. With the right 158 grain or heavier load, it's a capable deer round if ranges are kept reasonable.

Why not another round? If someone is an avid revolver shooter and already has a nice big stockpile of .357 mag, it seems like a decent choice.

Not that I'm knocking lever actions (I'm a fan) but I also think there is no such thing as too many options.

I'm a huge fan of the lever action .357 Mags; with the right load you are almost on par with a 30-30. But, when I look at my BA rifles, (.30-'06, .270 and 3 shotguns) I just feel the action makes sense (wish they made more BA shotguns). There isn't a reason for it, but I don't get Ruger's thinking on this. Kind of like a 1911 chambered in 40 S&W..........

From what I keep reading, it seems that the gun will be adequate at lots of things, but not really be outstanding at anything other than maybe burning up of .357 ammo for a guy that has a stockpile of it laying around/

But a turnbolt .357 magnum? Really? I mean...Really?

What's it for? What can it do that a lever-action can't do better?

If it's any consolation, I said the same thing about the 77/44.
Simply, I prefer a bolt gun to a lever action.
I don't like tubular magazines on a centerfire rifle. I've had and do have several.
Accuracy is almost always better on a bolt gun.
I can switch different types of loads easily in the field by simply switching mags. I actually have found this useful.


And foremost, it will make a great trainer for my grandson.

From what I keep reading, it seems that the gun will be adequate at lots of things, but not really be outstanding at anything other than maybe burning up of .357 ammo for a guy that has a stockpile of it laying around/I'm sorry, but is there something wrong with that? I look at it as a center fire "22", but more versatile. It will still take a few whitetail.

For those who want to know what a lever-action can do that the Ruger 77/357 can't do, here may be an answer -

The 77/357 will usually function well when loaded with .38 Special. However, the left over space in the magazine allows .38 Special cartridges room to migrate, occasionally to where the rim of the top round gets caught behind the rim of the round below, causing a “rim lock” jam. The incidence rate of this malfunction is fairly low, and varies by ammunition type. If you want to shoot .38 Special in your 77/357 you are welcome to do so, but you can’t blame your gun if it does not function perfectly! The gun was designed to shoot, and will shoot best, with 357 Magnum ammunition.

I plink with .38's all the time in my 1894.

That's not much of an issue for a handloader. It's pretty easy to load a .357 case down to a .38 level.

The real advantage I see to the 1894 over the 77 is greater mag capacity and a faster rate of fire.

The real advantage I see to the 1894 over the 77 is greater mag capacity and a faster rate of fire.Which means nothing to me for this type of gun. This is not going to be my zombie gun.

Which means nothing to me for this type of gun. This is not going to be my zombie gun.

I get that. If I suddenly come into $600-$700, I just might put one on order.

I'm really considering it.

ok.....so when are they going to be available?

I'm sure they'll trickle in like the SR1911s have.

That's not much of an issue for a handloader. It's pretty easy to load a .357 case down to a .38 level

True. I haven't bought .357 Mag from the store since I started reloading years ago, but I don't stock .38 brass. I can buy WM "value packs" of .38 Special pretty cheap for squirrels, soda cans, paper, etc. Plus, not everyone rolls their own - so I do see it as an issue.

I have always thought a Spanish Destroyer carbine would have been a lot of fun, but I wasn't big on screwing around with one more obscure caliber.
I don't know if I'd consider one of the new Ruger carbines or not, but I can see why someone might want one. If not, those who want them will buy them and they'll fade into the realm of collector's items.
Personally, I still kind of wish I had bought a 96/22 when I had the chance.

WAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

This is awesome!!!!!!!!

Edit: oh.. It's expensive, plastic stock, and only 5 rounds :(

As I recall. Rossi? did or does make a lever .357.

As I recall. Rossi? did or does make a lever .357

Yes they do. And in a number of models with round and octagonal barrels and also in both 20 inch and 16inch trapper lengths.

And they are about a half pound lighter than the Ruger.

Now Fisherman777 does have a point in that lever guns have more bits. But they just don't go bad all that often so having more bits isn't necessarily a bad thing. And it does allow for a faster follow up shot.

RWDale, you're also right that the Rossi is a bit rough out of the box. In my case that's been changed and following one more visit inside it should be a real slick gun to shoot. But given that most folks would want to have a gunsmith do the work instead of doing it themselves that would up the cost considerably and make the final price easily on par with the 77 or a Marlin 94.

This gun will sell!

There are probably more folks around with .38/357 revolvers than any other handgun except 9 mm. A whole bunch of them, including myself, will probably want to get one of these.

I'm going to buy one as soon as they become available. I'll wait for the recall and put it away as a collector gun for one year until Ruger discontinues making them and then find a Ruger collector that wants one of everything.

Wow, I struck a few nerves. Ssome people are really sensitive about their pet gunmaker.

I never said Ruger wasn't doing well, and I never said that other manufacturers don't blunder in the marketing research department. What I said is that Ruger, out of their extensive line-up, has only a few guns that consistently sell well. I also said that Ruger really doesn't make anything that someone else doesn't do better (for a similar price). Ruger makes OK guns, but they're all pretty ho-hum. Nothing really innovative, decent overall quality, average pricing. Ruger strives for, and consistently achieves, mediocrity.

Let's look:

Single action revolvers, Blackhawk and Vaquero are decent. Compared to a Colt or Uberti? Suck. And yes, Uberti has a heavy framed .44 mag now.

Double action revolvers are OK. Compared to S&W? Suck

P-series autos are alright guns. Compared to any number of other similarly priced combat autos? Suck

10/22 is a good gun. Compared to a Marlin 60? Sucks.

Mk I/II/III are pretty good. Compared to a Buckmark or Woodsman? Suck

Mini-14 is decent. Compared to AR's? Sucks

PC carbines? They were alright. Compared to Marlin camp carbines? Suck.

Red label and Gold label are nice. Compared to a Beretta? Suck

SR9? Well, basically, it just sucks. I'm not even going to bother mentioning the other polymer auto's that outclass it easily for similar money.

SR1911, decently executed. Compared to Colt and many others? Suck

LCP? What can we say, they finally got something right, but had to steal someone elses design and screw it up a few times first. Same for the LC9.

M77 is OK. Compared to a Remington 700? Suck

96/44 is functional (ugly as sin). Compared to a Marlin 1894? Sucks

96/22? See above, and reference Marlin 39. For .22 WMR comparison, see Henry.

No.1? Finally, we have a Ruger product that stands out above all others. Wait, that's because there really are no others........

Similar story for the Single Six and Deerfield. They're good, but they also have no competition.

Ruger doesn't have a pump or auto shotgun, but if they did, rest assured, it would be sub-par compared to a Remington, Benelli or Beretta.

I currently own 8 Rugers (Mini-14, M77 6mm, M77 Mk II Varmint .220, Super Redhawk .454, SP101 .32 mag, Single Six .32 Mag, Security Six .357, 10/22) I have had many, many others, and have shot just about everything they've ever made, so my opinion is solidly based on personal experience. As I said, they're all decent guns, but they all are outclassed by other guns that are fairly close in price, save for the SRH and Single-six, because they have no direct competition (other than the Taurus Raging Bull .454, and yes, the SRH is better). If S&W had a .454 between the N and X frames, the SRH would be traded in a heartbeat.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that I still feel (and am not alone in this assessment), that a .357 bolt gun, especially with a 5 round pain in the rear rotary magazine, is basically worthless. I'd bet money that sales will indicate that the majority of shooters feel the same, and that this thing will have a production run of 5 years or less.

Not sure why you found so many Ruger offerings suck in comparison.

The New Vaquero? A fine gun by anyone's standards for what it does.

Mark II and III? Superb guns by any standards. If not for the Luger like single hand target shooter style grip angle I'd already own one. The action is reliable as all get out and they just keep on ticking. No other .22, Buckmark included, has survived the "gentle graces" of my local Rent-A-Gun range with the reliability and "on line" time as the Rugers they have.

The Super Redhawk and Super Blackhawk I bought recently again are great guns for the money. Do they compare to semi custom stuff like US Firearms? Maybe not. But at the price point which makes them accessable to more folks they are great guns that shoot pretty darn well.

The New Vaquero? A fine gun by anyone's standards for what it does

They're alright. But now that they aren't able to handle the hot loads, they really have no good selling points over the much more svelte (and slightly less expensive) Uberti's. At least the old Vaq could have it's so-so ergonomics and icky action excused for it's ability to handle magnum loads.

Mark II and III? Superb guns by any standards. If not for the Luger like single hand target shooter style grip angle I'd already own one. The action is reliable as all get out and they just keep on ticking. No other .22, Buckmark included, has survived the "gentle graces" of my local Rent-A-Gun range with the reliability and "on line" time as the Rugers they have.

Like I said, they're pretty good. I would ask, though, is it your range, or a range you frequent? Because most of the time, the counter monkeys really have no idea what has or hasn't been done to range guns (abuse and repairs).

Regardless, they're a pain to take down comparatively, and the Mk III has that hideous LCI sticking out of it's driver side. My Mk II was quite accurate, decently reliable. But I prefer my NEOS for plinking, and it is far, far easier to clean.

The Super Redhawk and Super Blackhawk I bought recently again are great guns for the money. Do they compare to semi custom stuff like US Firearms? Maybe not.

Again, the SRH has only one competitor, and it really isn't. The SBH has always been a good gun, but put your hands on the Uberti Callahan Target before you proclaim the SBH to be the best .44 mag single action short of semi-customs.

http://www.hyattgunstore.com/images/D/medium-144.jpg

I don't know why people are dismissing factory 38 rounds out of hand.

"but the 38 is shorter"

Not really. The brass is a TINY bit shorter, but the OAL of the cartridges is negligible - close enough that a minor variation in bullet seating would cause them to overlap.

If you do a Google search, you will see a fair bit of discussion using the 44spl in the 44mag version (similar case length difference to 38/357). People are even re-barreling them to 44spl for suppressor rigs... no mention of any magazine problems.

Why don't we wait till the gun is actually OUT before we start making claims of what it can and cant do. ;)

WAIT WAIT WAIT A MINUTE, now I have your attention, the rotary magazine holds 4 or 5 rounds and does anyone think they will make an extended magazine?


Second when are they gonna make it in 327 Federal???

I could see it as a rifle for a young teenager to develop skills on...but so can a 22. But with the ruger 357, the rifle could also be used on larger game.

Later, after moving up to a rifle cartridge, the 357 would be a knockabout gun...plinking cans and stuff for cheaper than factory purchased rifle cartridges.

I'm not really sure if we'll get none, one or three...we'll see. The 5 round magazine takes some of the plinking fun out of it and my sons already shoot featherweight 7mm-08's out to 200 meters very well.

I purchased a New England Handi Rifle in 357 Magnum and had it rechambered to 357 Max. I can now shoot a variety of ammo at different power levels.

I wonder if this Ruger could be rechambered to the Maximum round?

I wonder if this Ruger could be rechambered to the Maximum round?
With a rotary magazine, I doubt it. They've cautioned against using .38 Specials for spotty feeding. I doubt a 0.40" longer cartridge is going to fit.

I thought uberti stuff was more for Cowboy action shooting, and really couldn't withstand hot hunting loads. Thought the same went for cimmeron revolvers. And my understanding of the ruger single action stuff was that they were built like tanks, and made for the heavy stuff.

And my understanding of the ruger single action stuff was that they were built like tanks, and made for the heavy stuff. Not the new, slimmed down Vaquero. Nice gun, but it is supposed to emulate the feel of the old SAAs, not the super duty Blackhawks and SBHs.

I'm going to buy one as soon as they become available. I'll wait for the recall and put it away as a collector gun for one year until Ruger discontinues making them and then find a Ruger collector that wants one of everything.That may be better suited for your grandchildren. I have a feeling Ruger will be making the 77/357 for some time.

You're take on Rugers is pretty extreme.

While I'd agree that a lot of their autoloaders are not up to the competition and that all of their guns have triggers that are excessively heavy, Ruger does make some great guns.

I'm not going to defend guns that I haven't owned or haven't had extensive experience with.

So here it goes:

Their Single Action revolvers don't suck. Short of a Freedom Arms single action, which for the record blow Colts out of the water, I'd take a Ruger over any other Single Action revolver made, period. The Rugers can take loads that will turn other single actions to scrap metal. They are accurate, durable, and reliable.

Ruger's DA revolvers are my favorite revolvers and maybe my favorite guns, period. These guns have a modular design that are very simple to strip, they have solid frames with no side plates, most have a triple-locking cylinder to maintain proper alignment of the cylinder and the barrel. These are the toughest DA revolvers on the market. The guns aren't finished to the level of a Smith or a Colt, but they are much stronger and more reliable. Trigger jobs are easy on these and they can easily be made to shoot comparably to Smiths and Colts. The finish can also be improved. A GP100 can be made every bit as accurate as a Smith or a Colt. Can a Colt or a Smith ever be as durable and reliable? Not a chance. Smith and Wesson makes some of the best autoloaders on the market with their M&Ps, but their revolvers are a shadow of what they used to be.

Their autoloading rimfire are every bit as good as any other comparably priced gun on the market.

Wow, I struck a few nerves. Ssome people are really sensitive about their pet gunmaker.

I never said Ruger wasn't doing well, and I never said that other manufacturers don't blunder in the marketing research department. What I said is that Ruger, out of their extensive line-up, has only a few guns that consistently sell well. I also said that Ruger really doesn't make anything that someone else doesn't do better (for a similar price). Ruger makes OK guns, but they're all pretty ho-hum. Nothing really innovative, decent overall quality, average pricing. Ruger strives for, and consistently achieves, mediocrity.

Let's look:

Single action revolvers, Blackhawk and Vaquero are decent. Compared to a Colt or Uberti? Suck. And yes, Uberti has a heavy framed .44 mag now.

Double action revolvers are OK. Compared to S&W? Suck

P-series autos are alright guns. Compared to any number of other similarly priced combat autos? Suck

10/22 is a good gun. Compared to a Marlin 60? Sucks.

Mk I/II/III are pretty good. Compared to a Buckmark or Woodsman? Suck

Mini-14 is decent. Compared to AR's? Sucks

PC carbines? They were alright. Compared to Marlin camp carbines? Suck.

Red label and Gold label are nice. Compared to a Beretta? Suck

SR9? Well, basically, it just sucks. I'm not even going to bother mentioning the other polymer auto's that outclass it easily for similar money.

SR1911, decently executed. Compared to Colt and many others? Suck

LCP? What can we say, they finally got something right, but had to steal someone elses design and screw it up a few times first. Same for the LC9.

M77 is OK. Compared to a Remington 700? Suck

96/44 is functional (ugly as sin). Compared to a Marlin 1894? Sucks

96/22? See above, and reference Marlin 39. For .22 WMR comparison, see Henry.

No.1? Finally, we have a Ruger product that stands out above all others. Wait, that's because there really are no others........

Similar story for the Single Six and Deerfield. They're good, but they also have no competition.

Ruger doesn't have a pump or auto shotgun, but if they did, rest assured, it would be sub-par compared to a Remington, Benelli or Beretta.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that I still feel (and am not alone in this assessment), that a .357 bolt gun, especially with a 5 round pain in the rear rotary magazine, is basically worthless. I'd bet money that sales will indicate that the majority of shooters feel the same, and that this thing will have a production run of 5 years or less.

Although i don't agree with you 100%, you aren't too far off the mark. I've found the Rugers i've owned were waaay over rated! I only own a few these days, and they rarely get fired, as in "most" cases, i own something better in that category...

DM

Rugers, IMO, tend to be more like run of the mill Chevy's. They'll get the job done, but not 'great' at anything. I think they'll do okay with this so long as the street price is much more reasonable (which I think it will be). I like the idea of a long gun in a pistol caliber. But it would be real handy in a zombie situation. So the 5 round magazine might not be the best. A lever gun, which would be less expensive, will hold more rounds. But I agree that it could be a fun gun for someone who reloads and has a lot of 357 brass. Could also be a decent little 'scout' rifle for white tail. It will likely have its niche. I don't see myself buying one. But I don't think it's 'worthless'. To me, it's not worth the price (even the street price) since it doesn't fulfill one of my 'wants'. For others it may. Great thing is, nobody is being forced to buy one.

Wouldn't this concept of a bolt .357 have worked better with a tube magazine? .38s would load better and if it was chambered for .357 max then that would potentially load better too would it not? Plus, you could have a handier plinker with a few more rounds. Equip it with a tube loader like a Marlin or Henry and it's quick to unload too.

I don't know how much of an issue it will be going from .38 to .357 with the rotary mag. Having more ammo loaded at one time vs. being able to shoot more rounds per min due to quicker reloads is not what I have in mind when making a purchase of a rifle such as this.

On the .357 Max issue, I don't see this as a deal breaker.

I like the idea of a long gun in a pistol caliber. But it would be real handy in a zombie situation. So the 5 round magazine might not be the bestI just don't see it as a zombie gun, but still, you will be able to shoot more rounds per min with a detachable mag (more mags) over a tubular mag.

J Mcleod,

I disagree.

The 77/357 would be more durable, more reliable, and more accurate. If you care to argue that, don't bother. A good bolt action rifle will always exceed any lever action gun in these areas.

The only thing that a lever action would have over a bolt action rifle would be that the lever action would be much faster with follow up shots. That is the only area the Marlin would beat the 77/357.
Having never shot either for accuracy, I'll concede the accuracy, but that' irrelevant unless you're match shooting with it. How much good with the 357 be when you shoot it far enough for accuracy to make a difference? For durability and reliability I think they'd be the same for all practical purposes. It would only be an issue if you're trying to break them.

MachIVshooter - Ruger is one of my default brands. I own a couple, have owned others, and have had fewer overall problems from Ruger guns and better customer service from them than any other brand.
Granted, they're not as smooth as an old S&W, but a new S&W isn't either. IMO, new S&W's just aren't anything to be proud of. Of the available choices, I'd take a Ruger in a DA and probably in an SA revolver too. FWIW - I've personally shot two S&W revolvers until they were out of time. My one friend's Colt Python is also currently out of time. I've never seen or heard of any Ruger getting out of time. IMO, they're the most durable and tough DA revolver available - and they don't have those stupid freaking lawyer safeties.
Their automatics aren't the prettiest but they generally work with excellent reliability. Any argument you can make against a Glock you can make against a Ruger automatic, but they also have most of the same strengths.
And what's so great about a Marlin M-60? My 10/22 and my brother's keep running long after my friends Marlin stops cycling from fouling. On paper his may be more accurate - can't say because we've never benched them against one another - but probably not by much if any. At the least, I hit what I shoot at with my Ruger and that's good enough. Last week my brother went five for five on little plastic army men we were using as targets at 25 yards. My friend with his Marlin missed every time. In this case it was the shooters, but my brother's old vintage Ruger from 1973 still shoots well enough to make those hits offhand after probably a hundred thousand rounds. And the Rugers will shoot probably three or more bulk packs before they need cleaning. The original 10/22 my brother has was owned by my dad before and shot from 1973 until I got curious and decided to clean it in 1995 - and it only malfunctioned a handful of times even when it was that dirty. IMO, the 10/22 has something approaching AK like reliability when it's running right.

I'm not slighting your experience, but your experience isn't in line with mine.

Equip it with a tube loader like a Marlin or Henry

I couldn't disagree more. I find that style magazines to be one of the very worst, ever.
In fact if I had only 2 choices that or a single shot break action it would be the break action every time. IMHO of course.

The 77/357 would be more durable, more reliable, and more accurate. If you care to argue that, don't bother. A good bolt action rifle will always exceed any lever action gun in these areas.


And this is based on what? Who here has even fired a Ruger 357 rifle for accuracy. Who here even owns a Ruger 357 rifle.

When the Ruger 77/44 came out there was a favorable write up in Shooting Times and the rifle was tested for accuracy at 50 yds with and averaged between 1.50" - 2.13" with 5 brands of factory ammo and 1.13" - 1.68" with 4 different reloads. A 4X scope was used.

This level of accuracy surely is not out of the reach of a good 44 lever action like a 1894 even with the open sights. Many revolvers can shoot sub 2" with a 4X scope.

I doubt the 77/357 will posess any overwhelming accuracy advantage over a Marlin 357 lever.

Perhaps, but both being tweaked, I'm betting on the bolt gun, even untested.

Also, if the urge to suppress, hands down winner is the bolt gun over the lever platform.

Perhaps, but both being tweaked, I'm betting on the bolt gun, even untested.

Also, if the urge to suppress, hands down winner is the bolt gun over the lever platform.
If you want fire suppression, just get a semi. And the bolt is only faster than the lever as long as you have loaded detachable mags. Once you run out of 5 round mags, the lever is faster. Plus you can top off the lever as you very easily.

I'm not sure why you are interested in high rates of fire for either a bolt or lever gun. But since you are, mags always win out. Loading mags is no slower than loading a tube through a loading gate. Several pre loaded mags would also give a higher rate of fire per minute. Again, sustained rate of fire is not why I will buy a .357 rifle.

And a suppressed bolt gun is quieter than a semi (the action makes a noise).

I think it is a cool gun. Fun to have with you if you are messing around a ranch or farm. Easy caliber to reload. It is like me loading the 30-30 with 125 grain FNHP and VV120 @ 2150 per second, but I would not have to size the brass, but I can load up the 30-30 where you can't with this rifle.

If you don't like levers then this would be a fun gun to tote around also. Little to no recoil, and powerful enough to get the job done.

I'm going catch a few reviews before I buy. If the 77/357 can handle .38s just reasonably well, I'll get one.

Looks pretty cool. If it shot .38 well, I'd be a lot happier.

And at least $100 less wouldn't hurt at all.


Kudos for the attempt, though. I'll be interested in the feedback from the brave souls who venture first.

Street price and MSRP are rarely the same, especially for Rugers.

Pretty spirited debate over a caliber offering in a bolt gun...Hard to believe that folks would get THAT riled up...

Ruger make a decent gun, they always have. Are they the best.. No... are they good Yes..

Why a 357 Bolt... easy, because they can.. and I am sure they have done their market research or they wouldn't have tooled up for it.

Ballisticlly, the 357 is a good little performer in a rifle. The ammo is cheaper. I can see many uses for it.. one a youth trainer, or 1st deer gun.. It would be a decent brush cartridge.. yes there are better, there is ALWAYS better.. but on paper it is not a bad concept.

I too would like to see larger magazine capacity, I'm sure that as someone gets their hands on one, someone will make one for it..

Will it stand the test of time... well time will tell us won't it.

Would I run out and buy one... I dunno.. gotta wrap my mitts around one first... I might..

Would I like to see more offerings, 327,Fed.. 357 Max... sure.. there is a butt for every seat..

This is America folks.. you CAN have it your way... and if you don't want one.. DON'T BUY IT... Jeezzss... I would hate to see these guys line up at Baskins and Robbins and start jumping all over each other about what flavor Ice Cream is best...

Pretty spirited debate over a caliber offering in a bolt gun...Hard to believe that folks would get THAT riled up... Actually, I thought the discussion had been going quiet well, sort of a point-counterpoint kinda thing. If you think this is a spirited debate, you should have been at a few of my family's reunions.

one a youth trainerI've been toying with that idea recently. This carbine is a bit big, but it could be slimmed down a bit yet. Cut the barrel to 16.25", and then cut the stock to size the whole package at 26.25" (skirting the NFA obviously) and see what kind of weight it runs. A .357 loaded right would make a nice little deer gun for a young hunter, or plinker for stretching a bit beyond the .22 most kids are stuck with until mid teenage years.

I just went to the site, and there is a .44 caliber offering as well. I think that is cool. One thing about the bolt 77 is that they are good pointing guns IMO. Also if they have a short stock on them. They would make for a good youth gun, and give the youth a feeling of having a true high power rifle like dad has. Very neat.

One thing I would have like to see is a 15 or 20 round detachable magazine. If it had this feature. I would buy one in a second. I think a .357 mag 77 bolt with a 20 round mag would really come in handy. Especially in a survival situation.

They've made the thing for Indiana and other states where you can hunt deer only with a pistol caliber rifle. That's good.
They should have made it like their gunsite scout rifle with the apeture rear sight and the forward scout scope mount. That's bad.
A traditional scope on a .357 carbine is kind of a waste...rather have the proper iron sights. 1 out of 3 is not good enough for me.

Maybe they will offer other configs?

They've made the thing for Indiana and other states where you can hunt deer only with a pistol caliber rifle. That's good.
They should have made it like their gunsite scout rifle with the apeture rear sight and the forward scout scope mount. That's bad.
A traditional scope on a .357 carbine is kind of a waste...rather have the proper iron sights. 1 out of 3 is not good enough for me.

Maybe they will offer other configs?

Interesting.

NECG and Ruger make peep sights that pinch into the Ruger scope ring recess. What you'll need for a front sight is Part Code IDK (I Don't Know.)

A Hoosier Scout? Now you're talkin'. Shorter and lighter and actually legal for something you might want to do with it. Some of our resident gunsmiths and experimenters might want to pitch in here with ideas on the best way to mount an optic forward.

Indiana already had a good rifle to use for their pistol caliber. The Marlin lever gun. :)

I think it is a good addition to the lineup for Ruger. I still think it should come with a 15 or 20 round magazine.

Perhaps they will.

For some reason I REALLY want a .357 rifle... even though I don't have a handgun in that caliber.

But I don't think this is it. I want a cheapish ammo (.38) plinker, that can do some service for home defense. A five round bolter is not that. I guess it will be a lever action, after all.

What I really want is a 10/22 styled auto in a .357 class cartridge. Somebody needs to make an updated M1 Carbine.

Ruger has a few staple firearms that keep them in business (10/22, M77, No.1, single-six, MK I/II/III, P85, Blackhawk, Redhawk, SP-101, GP-100).

That's kind of like saying, "Other than the Big Mac and the Quarter Pounder, what has McDonald's come up with? A couple of those Ruger staples may sell more than every other gun in their classes, combined. When you sell a billion burgers you can take a chances on some iffy products. Ruger can, too. They may have a McRib type hit, or a McDLT failure.

I am jealous of you. I wish I had the time to test and compare all the different firearms that you have.

How many rounds do you fire in your testing before you conclude what is good and what sucks?

Indiana already had a good rifle to use for their pistol caliber. The Marlin lever gun. :)

I think it is a good addition to the lineup for Ruger. I still think it should come with a 15 or 20 round magazine.

Thing is it's a rotary magazine, trying to build on the success they had with the 10/22, and it takes substantial R&D to actually make an extended 10/22 mag that works half the time.

I think the Deerfield (a sort of M1 carbiney-looking thing with four rounds on board) would have worked for them if there were bigger magazines. But it was a rotary, and no aftermarket clips :D were forthcoming.

Hmm. Dead end in engineering? Say that four is four, and ever more shall be it so.

I have quite a few extended 10/22 mags and they work great. I don't see why the same principal could be applied to this rifle. It kind of cracks me up that people complained about the Ruger GSR because the mag extended beyond the stock, now people are made because the magazine is flush with the stock. I don't have a problem with 5 round magazines in a handy little carbine. I guess that is why we live in America, so we have the freedom to choose.

Thing is it's a rotary magazine, trying to build on the success they had with the 10/22, and it takes substantial R&D to actually make an extended 10/22 mag that works half the time. Ruger current makes a 25 round mag for the 10/22. http://shopruger.com/10_22-BX-25-MAGAZINE/productinfo/90361/

Now if they had made it for the .357 Max that would of been nice.

Yes, producing a rifle in an obscure caliber is a guarantee for a best seller. I bet there are at least a dozen people that shoot 357 max regularly, and at least 2 of them would probably buy the rifle.

Yes, producing a rifle in an obscure caliber is a guarantee for a best seller. I bet there are at least a dozen people that shoot 357 max regularly, and at least 2 of them would probably buy the rifle.

You do realize that 357 max can fire magnums and 38's too?

But the action is far far too short for that anyway.

Maybe we'll see a 45lc and a 30 carbine on this platform too.


Tapatalk post via IPhone.

I thought uberti stuff was more for Cowboy action shooting, and really couldn't withstand hot hunting loads. Thought the same went for cimmeron revolvers. And my understanding of the ruger single action stuff was that they were built like tanks, and made for the heavy stuff.

The Uberti's can handle "warm" loads, which is all the new Vaquero can take. The Uberti Callahan, though, is a heavy frame SAA, and can take full house .44's.

I've personally shot two S&W revolvers until they were out of time. My one friend's Colt Python is also currently out of time. I've never seen or heard of any Ruger getting out of time. IMO, they're the most durable and tough DA revolver available - and they don't have those stupid freaking lawyer safeties.

Which model S&W? Because that was really only ever a problem with the 27 if used heavily in rapid fire, on account of the huge mass of an N frame cylinder with little .357 holes in it. Since Ruger's lock system is so very similar, you'd end up with the same kind of problem in the rare Redhawk .357. Try rapid DA firing with a SRH. You can just feel that thing battering the stop.

As for the lawyer lock, I'm no fan, and don't own any. That said, Ruger printing the owner's manual on the barrel is hardly any better. The loaded chamber indicators on their auto's are about the most obtrusive eyesore one can imagine, as well.

A couple of those Ruger staples may sell more than every other gun in their classes, combined

Really? Which ones? :rolleyes:

I am jealous of you. I wish I had the time to test and compare all the different firearms that you have.How many rounds do you fire in your testing before you conclude what is good and what sucks?

I don't have as much time now, with twin daughters and a business to run, but for a decade, I was making really good money and had nothing better to do with it than buy guns and tinker with hot rods.

How many rounds? As many as needed. But since reliability isn't the comparison point for any of them, I think round count is irrelevant. One needn't even fire a round to deterine that a 686 has a nicer action than a GP100, or that a CZ-75 is better balanced and smoother than a P85, that a Beretta Silver Pigeon is a much more svelte and naturally pointing O/U than the Red Label.

Loading mags is no slower than loading a tube through a loading gate.

Generally speaking, yes. But Ruger's rotary magazines are definitely an exception to the rule. Slow to load, taxing on the thumb, and have to rock into place in such a way and with such preload that rapid changes aren't all that easily accomplished.

ETA:

Anyone who lives nearby and has a 77/44 or buys a 77/357, I'd gladly take on a challenge for money to see who can get through a box of ammo faster, me with a gate-loaded Marlin Levergun, you with the rotary-magazine Ruger. Don't need to do the 10/22 vs. Tube fed auto challenge; Already done it. Even with 2 mags for the Ruger, the tube fed Marlin 60 and Remington 552 won hands-down. The only way the Ruger can get through a few boxes faster is with several mags and one person shooting, 2 loading.

But since reliability isn't the comparison point for any of them, I think round count is irrelevant.

Why not? I too prefer guns with certain looks and feels. But, a good looking gun with reliability issues stays at gun store as far as I am concerned.

Time for a laugh.

I have a Hi Point in 380 ACP. It is not exactly a "svelte." It has the look and feel of a brick. It makes Glocks look good. But, the pistol is utterly reliable and pretty accurate.

Generally speaking, yes. But Ruger's rotary magazines are definitely an exception to the rule. Slow to load, taxing on the thumb, and have to rock into place in such a way and with such preload that rapid changes aren't all that easily accomplished.I can't think of any gun slower to load or unload than the traditional lever gun.

Perhaps we should start altering the M4s to take a tube and loading gate, instead of a mag.:) If I were to take you up on that bet, I'd have enough mags to get through the entire box. Also, while a Marlin 60 indeed has a tube, it doesn't have a loading gate. A loading gate forces the person loading to contend with an ever more compressing spring one round at a time.

Nevertheless, as to which platform can shoot the faster, that is not why I would purchase either of the two. Interesting banter, for a while, but it's not of any real importance in my buying strategy.

"ETA:

Anyone who lives nearby and has a 77/44 or buys a 77/357, I'd gladly take on a challenge for money to see who can get through a box of ammo faster, me with a gate-loaded Marlin Levergun, you with the rotary-magazine Ruger. Don't need to do the 10/22 vs. Tube fed auto challenge; Already done it. Even with 2 mags for the Ruger, the tube fed Marlin 60 and Remington 552 won hands-down. The only way the Ruger can get through a few boxes faster is with several mags and one person shooting, 2 loading."

I am just wondering why you would rule out the use of mulitple magazines. Isn't that the purpose of a magazine fed rifle? How many folks do you know that have an AR with only one magazine. Or a 1911, Glock, M&P, AK, etc... It just seem a bit slanted to me. I am sure I could beat up Mike Tyson if I insisted his arms were tied behind his back.

I like leverguns too, but have mulitple magazines for all my rifles/pistols that use them.

I am also curios why no one has brought up the dreaded "Marlin Jam":

http://marauder.homestead.com/files/marlin94fix.html

It is well documented and occurs with regularity. The Marlin .357's aren't perfect either.

Or the recent lack of quality control coming from Marlin after the move:

http://www.marlinowners.com/forums/index.php?board=179.0

I guess if we are honest, all makes and models have pluses and minuses. Each buyer has to figure out what works best for them and then make an educated purchase. Marlin's issues are killing me right now, because I am a big fan of their leverguns, but I wouldn't currently buy one.

Just some additional thoughts for perspective.

If I were to take you up on that bet, I'd have enough mags to get through the entire box.

This is a concession that to have a ROF faster than the Marlin (A less expensive gun to begin with) through a brick of ammo, you'd need at least $200 worth of extra mags (using the cheapest 50 rounders).

And in my experience with the 10/22 I've owned, most of the higher capacity mags create serious reliability issues.

I can't think of any gun slower to load or unload than the traditional lever gun.

Ummm, a bolt gun with fixed floor plate?

Once again, I'll shove 5 rounds into my 1894 before you can push them into that rotary mag and insert the thing. And if we're talking truly unloading, I bet I can shuck 5 live rounds through my 1984 quicker than anyone could drop the mag in a 97/44 and push the 5 rounds out of it.



Perhaps we should start altering the M4s to take a tube and loading gate, instead of a mag.

Did you miss the part where I said Ruger's rotary magazine?

Most magazines are much faster to load than Ruger rotary type. You don't even have to use your thumb with AR mags if you have a hard, flat surface available. One can load a 30 round AR mag in 10-15 seconds.

You guy's seem to think that I'm saying the 10/22 (and other Rugers) are bad guns. I'm not. What I am saying is that they aren't the apex in any category where there are real competitors. I would bet real money that if you laid some example Ruger guns out with the ones I've comapred them to, the extreme majority of people who aren't biased one way or the other would end up choosing the other gun after looking at and handling them.

I probably own (8) or at least have owned (19) more Ruger's than most of you who are arguing with me, and as mentioned, there are but a few variants of certain models that I haven't personally fired. Ruger's problem now more than ever is that they have come to believe they can command top tier pricing on middle of the road guns. $650+ for a standard mini? Are you kidding me? The P-series are still a bargain......until you consider the available police trade-in guns like the 5906 that can be had for the same kind of money. The Red Label has serious competition from better guns (like the Beretta 686 and Browning Citori) in the $1,500-ish price range.

I am just wondering why you would rule out the use of mulitple magazines. Isn't that the purpose of a magazine fed rifle? How many folks do you know that have an AR with only one magazine. Or a 1911, Glock, M&P, AK, etc... It just seem a bit slanted to me. I am sure I could beat up Mike Tyson if I insisted his arms were tied behind his back.

There are variables that can tilt the balance either way. An apples to apples comparison is two completely unloaded guns. Or, if you prefer, having to use them as purchased brand new without accessories.

Look at it the other way: Would it be a fair competition if the 10/22 had only it's factory mag and the guy shooting the Marlin or other tube-fed gun had 3 dozen cartridge tubes ready to go?

I am also curios why no one has brought up the dreaded "Marlin Jam": It is well documented and occurs with regularity. The Marlin .357's aren't perfect either.

Or the recent lack of quality control coming from Marlin after the move

You might have a point if Ruger had a .357 lever gun to compare against the Marlin. However, the comparison between the 1894 and 77/357 has been speed and speed alone. The only other aspect we can really compare of such very different designs is accuracy, which remains purely speculative until the Ruger's are out in sufficient quantity to earn a deserved reputation in that regard.

In the spirit of reliability, though, as stated by Ruger themselves, the 77/357 has a good chance of experiencing jams if used with .38 special ammo.

MachIV,

I agree with what you are saying and probably wouldn't have even commented if you hadn't unilaterally declared that most if not all Ruger products "Suck". They simply don't. I worked in a gun store for many years while in college and sold thousands of guns. Rugers for the most part come back far less for repair than any other maker. When I was selling guns in the mid 90's, we had to stop selling Colt 1911's because so many would function from the factory. This was a hard call for us, because we were a Colt Master Dealer, but in the end they were letting the customers down. And remember the Colt All American 2000?? How about the original S&W Sigma's with the trigger that break in half?

My point is that a blanket statement and all Ruger's Suck is probably going to draw some fire.

I am going to replace my Marlin 1894 with a Ruger 77/357. I will report on it here and tell you if I made a good choice.

Buying a .357 rifle based upon how fast you can load it is like buying a handgun, because someone tells you it can be fired underwater. If I want to shoot underwater, I'll buy a spear gun. If I want sustained fire, I'll use one of my ARs.

I really wonder how many people considering the purchase of a .357 rifle are concerned with how fast you can reload either. Again, it's a non issue.

My point is that a blanket statement and all Ruger's Suck is probably going to draw some fire.



What is a brand discussion thread on thehighroad without some haters and fanboys spreading hyperbole?

I am going to replace my Marlin 1894 with a Ruger 77/357. I will report on it here and tell you if I made a good choice.


Will be interesting. The Ruger would have to turn out to shoot really accurately for me to be interested. At least on the level of my 10" TC Contender. No doubts that the 77/357 will be accurate enough for short range hunting but I would not spend that kind of money just to have something different that did not shoot. If they turn out to really shoot well I may consider one as I've always like the 357.

Mach iv you're really really grasping if all you can come up with is rate of fire. You know what I can lay a box of 50 rds on the table and beat you not even using my 77/44's mag just by loading single rounds into the chamber. I owned a 1895 and there isn't a slower to load gun made and forget about single rounds dropped into the loading gate since they just love to hang up on the back of the lifter and cause the user to do a nice rifle sideways jiggle dance.

Besides arguing that a bolt action 357 mag is slower to reload and offers less rate of fire than a 357 levergun is akin to bragging about being the smartest kid in special Ed class.


Why don't we talk about the safety mechanisms on the two guns.

Ruger- three position
Marlin - inadvertent decocker and a halfcock "pull the trigger on a live round" notch.


Hmmmm let me think in a survival situation which would I want to potentially share with fellow survialists who may of may not be gun people in an environment where gloves may be required.

BTW rate of fire in a survival rifle means learning how to throw spears sooner


Another point

As the owner of several different 357 carbines the use of 38's has no practical use WHATSOEVER

Why

Because the difference in POI even at 50yds from magnum loads is best expressed in FEET. Or in other words you're not going to hit squat with a 357 sighted rifle shooting 38's on something the size of "small" game.

Because the difference in POI even at 50yds from magnum loads is best expressed in FEET. Or in other words you're not going to hit squat with a 357 sighted rifle shooting 38's on something the size of "small" game. -something I hadn't even thought about. All of the sudden, the importance of the rotary magazine being able to handle .38s isn't so important.

I'm just glad I don't need other peoples justifications for my buying a rifle. I find it is exactly what I wanted(like others though I do prefer wood stocks and blued finish.) If they hit the shelves between 5 and 6 hundred dollars i might own two of them.

I'm just glad I don't need other peoples justifications for my buying a rifle. I find it is exactly what I wanted(like others though I do prefer wood stocks and blued finish.) If they hit the shelves between 5 and 6 hundred dollars i might own two of them.
I think they are going to be about $550ish...

Mach iv you're really really grasping if all you can come up with is rate of fire.

Since the 77/357's accuracy is yet unknown, what else is there? Same cartridge, similar size, weight and cost.

But that's like saying one is really grasping to suggest that a Camaro SS only advantage over a V6 car is being much faster. That's the whole point.

You know what I can lay a box of 50 rds on the table and beat you not even using my 77/44's mag just by loading single rounds into the chamber

I can single load a Levergun, too.

. I owned a 1895 and there isn't a slower to load gun made and forget about single rounds dropped into the loading gate since they just love to hang up on the back of the lifter and cause the user to do a nice rifle sideways jiggle dance.

Except the 1895 is a whole different class of levergun from the 94. Much longer stroke to accomodate the .45-70 (or .444, .450) cartridge and the elevator system is not quite the same.

That said, I bet I can still load the 4 rounds my 1895 SS holds and fire them off faster than one can load the 77/357 magazine, insert it and and empty the rifle.

Besides arguing that a bolt action 357 mag is slower to reload and offers less rate of fire than a 357 levergun is akin to bragging about being the smartest kid in special Ed class.

Nice attempt at a dig, but you just managed to dis both rifles and still admit that the levergun is superior in firepower.


Why don't we talk about the safety mechanisms on the two guns.

Ruger- three position
Marlin - inadvertent decocker and a halfcock "pull the trigger on a live round" notch.


Hmmmm let me think in a survival situation which would I want to potentially share with fellow survialists who may of may not be gun people in an environment where gloves may be required.

That's personal preference. I personally hate safeties on leverguns, so this is not a detractor for me. I'm not alone on this one, either.

If you can't control the hammer on gun to decock it, that's your malfunction, and you need to stay away from revolvers as well.

Between your wanting to say how impossibly slow side gate loading is and suggesting that it's unsafe or otherwise difficult to manually lower a hammer, I can only surmise that you have hand strength or dexterity issues.

BTW rate of fire in a survival rifle means learning how to throw spears sooner


Huh???

Another point

As the owner of several different 357 carbines the use of 38's has no practical use WHATSOEVER

Except the single biggest reason people like .357/.38 interchangeability, and the very reason that is cited for .357 Revolvers time and time again on this board and every other; COST. If one doesn't handload, .38 is half the price, which makes the interchangeability very attractive if one intends to actually shoot their gun.

It's almost as though you are trying to justify your purchase...

if you hadn't unilaterally declared that most if not all Ruger products "Suck". They simply don't.

They don't suck in general, they suck comparatively. There are also a lot of guns that suck next to Ruger offerings. It's all relative.

If they just generally sucked, I would own zero, not 8 of them. If they were comparatively better to others, I'd still have more than 20 of them.

really wonder how many people considering the purchase of a .357 rifle are concerned with how fast you can reload either. Again, it's a non issue.

By that logic, the 77/357 has no advantage over a Contender or Handi-Rifle. I imagine more than a few would beg to differ.

That said, I wasn't really getting at the reloading speed; that was prompted later. My initial point was that the levergun is faster to fire in general, an oft-cited advantage for brush hunting and other close-in uses for carbines.

It's almost as though you are trying to justify your purchase...


What purchase? I'm not in the market for a .357 carbine of any flavor. I have nothing invested either way, just stating some facts and some opinions. You want a 77/357, go for it, have fun with it. I'm sure it'll tickle your pickle. But I don't want one, for all the reasons previously mentioned. Some other folks feel similarly, and some who were undecided have been able to look through these 5 pages of discourse and form their own opinions.

Your current lever action

Your current lever action

Make that plural.

I don't need to justify them, I like them better for thier applications due to their attributes of being handier. Do I prefer leverguns to bolt rifles in general? Nope, and and I own more bolt guns. But that doesn't change my opinion (shared by others) that a bolt rifle in a handgun chambering is particularly pointless. Like I said, if it's what you want, have at it. Not gonna hurt my feelings, and you can chat up the Ruger all you want for it's benefits. But unless they prove to be significantly more accurate than a 94 (doubtful, as 94's are pretty accurate and Ruger, with a few exceptions, is not noted as a maker of superbly accurate firearms), the 77/357 has no advantages and gives up one that some of us consider relatively important in this class of firearm.

I'm sure they'll sell a few, but I will wager that it has no chance of displacing the 94 or any other .357 Levergun. I'm still betting fewer than 5 years production. Could be wrong, only time will tell, and if I am, I am. But it really won't make a shred of difference to me either way. It could be out of the catalog by this time next year, or it could be a standard offering when my now-infant daughters have teenaged children of their own, I still ain't gonna have one, and I'll be neither better or worse off for it's production or lack therof.

I just like to make the correction that I should have been referencing the 94 marlin above. I don't know why I typed 95, I've never owned one of those.

Mach4 why are you here shouting from the roof tops justifying your non purchase? You don't want one GOOD now go find another thread to troll. I don't know what it is but ANY time ANY thing rifle related comes out that moves into what the levergun guys deem their turf the jack gun trolls come out of the woodwork full of butthurt and fake indignation doing nothing but bashing and and acting like we don't know what their 150 year old platform does.

It was that way when I was posting about my 460s&w carbine reloading adventures and it's that way now talking about rugers expanded lineup.


Tapatalk post via IPhone.

Mach4 why are you here shouting from the roof tops justifying your non purchase?

A bit of an exaggeration, don't ya think? I don't recall ever saying "This awful, absolutely worthless pile of Ruger junk shouldn't be allowed to burden the shelves of gunshops".

I just stated my opinions, same as you. If that's trolling from your perspective, then there's a definite hypocrisy in telling me to

go find another thread to troll


I don't know what it is but ANY time ANY thing rifle related comes out that moves into what the levergun guys deem their turf the jack gun trolls come out of the woodwork full of butthurt and fake indignation doing nothing but bashing and and acting like we don't know what their 150 year old platform does.

Your assumption. If they'd introduced an autoloader, I'd actually think it was pretty cool (still hate rotary mags, though). But it's not an autoloader, it's another 150 year old design that's even slower to operate than the 150 year old design you reference.

Also, I'm not really a "levergun guy". I have 5. I have more than forty bolt guns, including Rugers.

I don't know why you're so upset that some of us don't particularly like this thing, nor why you've chosen to engage me in particular versus others who share my opinion. Perhaps because I call a spade a spade, and do so without worrying about hurting your feelings? I dunno, but I am finding it kind of amusing that I've gotten a couple of you so fired up here. I mean, really? It's not like you're building the guns and I'm insulting you personally by calling them mediocre.

I was just reading the ruger owners manual and this is what it reads (cut and paste) "The RUGER MODEL 77/357TM is chambered only for the centerfire .357
Magnum cartridge and should not be used with any other .357 caliber ammunition." Lucky for me the dillon 550 doesn't mind what cases I feed it. For those that don't reload this might be an issue.

Ruger Says this:

The 77/357 will usually function well when loaded with .38 Special. However, the left over space in the magazine allows .38 Special cartridges room to migrate, occasionally to where the rim of the top round gets caught behind the rim of the round below, causing a “rim lock” jam. The incidence rate of this malfunction is fairly low, and varies by ammunition type. If you want to shoot .38 Special in your 77/357 you are welcome to do so, but you can’t blame your gun if it does not function perfectly! The gun was designed to shoot, and will shoot best, with 357 Magnum ammunition.

I reload so it is a non issue. I will just use .357 brass which I have tons of...

Again, POI will be off with the .38, so I will just come up with a good load and call it a day.

The reason he called you a troll is that the entire thread was discussing the new Ruger 77/357. Most of us were discussing this rifle, yet you seem to wish to make a point of not comparing the two platforms for general consumption, but rather letting us all know how you have made the better decision.

The same would follow if I entered a "Look at Glock's new entry" thread, and continued to proclaim how great my HKs/Sigs/etc are, and how lacking Glock's new entry is. After one comparison, the remainder becomes self serving.

The biggest problem with your post is that the moderators will soon close down what was an informative and enjoyable thread.

ECVMATT I must have missed that part, I couldn't imagine rounds rims overlapping by bouncing around in the mag due to tiny amounts of recoil that 38's provide or by just working the action or under any circumstance really. I guess we will see.

Dobe, couldn't have said it better myself. 6254 posts Haha, I couldn't imagine why

The main advantage of the rotary mag bolt action 77/357 over a comparable lever gun is the ease and safety of loading and unloading. I have lever-action .357s and .44s. They are a hoot to shoot. But since I bought my 77/44, I don't take them hunting much anymore. I get tired of having to rack a tube full of shells thru the gun every time I need to unload it. Popping in a rotary mag is much easier than feeding a tube full thru a loading gate also. It is a lightweight, easy to maneuver brush gun that has more than enough power to take any deer within range.

Because of the range limitation of handgun ammo, accuracy and ease of loading and unloading, it may very well be my granddaughters first deer gun. Having to unload it with small, cold, glove wearing hands will be much safer than any of my levers. Because a scope mounted so easily and fits the lines of the gun, not only does it make easier for these old eyes to shoot accurately, it should make it easier for her younger less experienced eyes to get a good and clear sight picture. No, I won't be dumping my levers anytime soon as they are too much fun shooting at the range when emptying the tube magazines means pulling the trigger. Whether or not I buy a 77/357 is yet to be determined, and altho is not the perfect gun for everybody, I see a large niche that they will fill.


BTW....the 77/44 I bought lists for slightly more than the 77/357 and was bought for right around $550 OTD. This included a set of Ruger rings.

I just stated my opinions, same as you.

You are right, you are entitiled to your opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs. But, strong opinions should be backed by strong facts.

You go to a doctor and an x-ray reveals something disturbing. Most doctors will then run other tests before rendering an opinion. That way he can back up what he says, espically if it is bad news.

I have owned several different Ruger firearms. None of them gave me a lick of trouble. Some were also very accurate. I have never owned a Ruger shotgun, so I have no way to form an opinion.

Yes, you are probably being dog-piled. But you posted a response that uses the word suck in reference to Rugers. That is a strong adjective. If I said a guns sucks, it would have to be inaccurate, have major reliability problems, or be assembled poorly. I would have to personally fired the weapon or witnessed someone else doing so.

The reason he called you a troll is that the entire thread was discussing the new Ruger 77/357. Most of us were discussing this rifle, yet you seem to wish to make a point of not comparing the two platforms for general consumption, but rather letting us all know how you have made the better decision.

I'm sorry, I guess I missed the disclaimer in the OP that read "This thread is for specific discussion of the new 77/357 by Ruger fanboys only; Dissenters are unwelcome and no other firearm may be mentioned"

I also had no intention of going down this road at the onset, but conjecture such as:
I don't think Ruger would be in business if they didn't study their market to determine what would sell.

Just left the door wide open to argue Ruger's judgement on what they do or don't build. From there, it has gone here.

As for the insinuation that I'm "letting you know I made the better decision"; How so? When I bought my 94, this rifle didn't even exist. And I've done plenty of comparing the two, if you'll actually read my posts instead of just jumping on this bandwagon. I know it makes a few of you feel good to collectively defend your pet, but it isn't constructive or endearing.

The biggest problem with your post is that the moderators will soon close down what was an informative and enjoyable thread.

Tick-Tock....................still waiting. They aren't going to for what I've said, but certain other comments that push the limits of THR attack policies are another matter:

Dobe, couldn't have said it better myself. 6254 posts Haha, I couldn't imagine why


But, strong opinions should be backed by strong facts.

Since when is that requisite? I don't need "facts" to strongly opine that Megan Fox is a beautiful young woman. That's the whole point of opinion:


Opinion (noun)-

1: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
2: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge

You go to a doctor and an x-ray reveals something disturbing. Most doctors will then run other tests before rendering an opinion. That way he can back up what he says, espically if it is bad news.

A professional medical "opinion" is a little different than one's personal taste in goods, don't you think? What I think of a particular gun won't affect anyone else's life, but a doctor telling someone it is his opinion that they have cancer would be absolutely devastating, even if he is proven wrong shortly.

Similarly, when I offer someone my professional opinion on whether or not their car is worth fixing, there are facts involved in rendering it.

All that said, if someone asked for my opinion on this rifle, having not yet shot it, I would tell them that it is probably well made and reasonably accurate, but that I feel it has a handicap when compared to lever actions in the same chambering.

Yes, you are probably being dog-piled. But you posted a response that uses the word suck in reference to Rugers. That is a strong adjective. If I said a guns sucks, it would have to be inaccurate, have major reliability problems, or be assembled poorly. I would have to personally fired the weapon or witnessed someone else doing so.

Well, I didn't say that this particular rifle sucks, because I've not yet handled one. I also didn't say that Ruger's suck (once again, read my posts, as I've reiterated this several times). In point of fact, I said that Rugers are of "decent overall quality" (post #68, unedited), and in my breakdown I gave them all the nod for being decent guns, but that they suck compared to certain other guns of the same type and similar price. If you want, I can go into detail with the reasons I have those opinions, but that's going to be a very long post, and none of you are actually reading most of what I've written anyway.

So ya'll dogpile away, doesn't bother me. You're not changing my mind or certain facts by doing so

I didn't have the patience to read the whole thread, so it may have been covered. The advantage I see to this is rifle that it will be easy to suppress. The lever actions are complicated to suppress because of the magazine tube. You hang any 9 mm can on the Ruger and go to town with subsonic ammo.

Since when is that requisite?

Since it make the person that opines sound intelligent.

Several years ago there was a study done to show that often, the more a person brags and acts like they know-it-all, the less they actually do. Making blanket statements doesn't help.

I didn't have the patience to read the whole thread, so it may have been covered. The advantage I see to this is rifle that it will be easy to suppress. The lever actions are complicated to suppress because of the magazine tube. You hang any 9 mm can on the Ruger and go to town with subsonic ammo.
Yep -- it was referenced a couple of times.

Kind'a brings to mind the old British Delisle "Commando" carbine based on an Enfield action and modified 1911 .45 acp magazines, doesn't it?


.

Hot dang!

Six pages of discussions and arguments...!

I think I want a carbine that can generate this much buzz and controversy... :D


.

Since it make the person that opines sound intelligent.


Fair enough, except that as I said, none of you are really reading all I've written anyway. I did outline examples of firearms I feel outclass the Rugers, and gave some of the reasons. But as I said, to detail everything is going to be a very long post that doesn't really belong here. Like, an entire page in the thread.

Once again, I had no intention of getting this far off track, but the assertion that Ruger excels at market research and making only products that will sell beckoned dissention, because the truth is they've had a great many flops. The fanboys jumping on me for pointing that out is what led into discussion of Ruger making rather boring, middle of the road guns. Ruger's own arrogance in the "Countdown to something new and exciting" on their website, only to reveal another ho-hum firearm that's a day late and a dollar short, further exemplifies this.

OK OK here's what you do mach4 if you want folks to actually read and respond to your overall opinion of ruger and their product as a company.

Take your first post select it and click "copy". Then head over to general discussion and click on the "start new thread", paste the copied post into the message window. All that will be left to do is come up with a lame and marginally offensive thread tittle.

VIOLA! you now have the same thread you can then orbit around to attempt to gain the positive reinforcement you obviously so desperately crave and we'll be left free to discuss the one and only gun we wish to discuss in this thread, the 77/357


Have fun and good luck! Don't look for me to follow you over to the other thread.

BTW anything other than the above by you at this point is obvious and blatant trolling.


Tapatalk post via IPhone.

lol@ dale getting worked up

It would be nice to lock this thread that start a new thread that focuses on the rifle only. I believe the GunBlast guys are getting a rifle for testing on Monday or Tuesday and could provide some real experience with the rifle. That would be a good starting point.

Good idea ECVMatt, this has been the most un-highroad thread I've read in awhile. I even looked at some other forums to read about the rifle :o!
I still think a tube fed option would be cool.

(...blankety-blank High-Road moderators locking every friggin' thread ... won't let folks say what they want to say ... buncha censoring Nazi control freaks ... wish they'd keep their darned hands off and let a thread run once in a while ...)

<...shrug...>