Do Ruger 77s Have Soft Barrels, Breakable Parts???

Kestrel · February 16, 2003, 07:19 PM

I always thought the Ruger 77 was considered a rugged rifle, but I read on another forum that they have soft barrels and cheap, cast parts that break. I know they are cast, but I didn't know the construction of these rifles was that fragile.

Is this true?

Thanks for any help,
Steve

dakotasin · February 16, 2003, 07:26 PM

i'm not a very big ruger fan myself, but i don't believe that stuff. any rifle subject to enough abuse is bound to break.

like any rifle, ruger has strengths and weaknesess, but i wouldn't count fragility among its drawbacks.

Buckskinner · February 16, 2003, 07:42 PM

I have two M77 rifles, one in '06 and one in .338 WM. I have hunted for extended periods of time, in lots of various weather, and do a lot of shooting from benches too. I've NEver had any failures. My '06 is a fine rifle, and a tough mother. I went pig hunting in summer a few times, and slung on my back on an ATV it got coated in dust and grime so bad, the bolt was hard to open. I blew it off, wiped it with the corner of my shirt, and hunted until I got a shot. No misfires, ever. The .338 spent its early life as a guide's gun in AK. It has plenty of moose and bear experience,and comes with a complaint free pedigree.

Okay, deeeeeeep breath...

I think my Ruger's are good rifles. Maybe there's a difference with the Mark II's?

Sir Galahad · February 16, 2003, 08:24 PM

I have a Ruger M77Mk2 International in .308 and it's a fine rifle. I love it. Rugers are rugged. Ruger makes rifles to be rugged. The action on mine is smooth and never had a problem with it. I am shooting milsurp ammo through it, too, without a problem. The scope rings on a Ruger are bombproof. I got them free with the rifle. I've mounted a scope and didn't use loctite and many hundred shots later, it's still tight and snug. I go through a 140 battle pack in a couple weeks with it. Accuracy wise, it's great. Scoped at 80 yards just fooling around with a towel-over-jeep-hood-rest, it made a 3 shot group you could cover with a penny. And that's with milsurp ammo. The only other bolt action I own is a Mosin Nagant if that helps you see where I place the Ruger in ruggedness.

Oh, and if you're looking for short and handy, I strongly suggest the International.

El Tejon · February 16, 2003, 08:31 PM

Second what Sir G said. I am having a Ruger RSI that I took in as an alternative fee reworked right now. I can't wait to get it back.

M77s usually need their barrels recrowned, at least that I've seen. Always helps them.

HSMITH · February 16, 2003, 09:02 PM

Well, Ruger does get some low marks from me. Those low marks are for "prettyness", and weight, and rough bores. The rifles are not as refined to my eye as a M70 Classic or a Rem 700, and they are typically heavy for the class of rifles. The rough bores shoot smooth if broken in well, otherwise a little lapping makes cleaning a lot easier in the future. The rough bore does not hurt accuracy at all for shorter shot strings, say a box of shells long.

Ruger has made their living on one simple premise, guns that are hell for stout and last forever. Over engineered and overbuilt are good descriptions for everything they make. They build guns you can count on every time for less money than anyone else in the class.

Cast parts breaking and soft barrels are total BS. ALL barrels are relatively soft, and casting done right is as strong as a forged part. A lot of people don't know that Ruger is a recognized world leader in casting technology either, they have invented quite a few casting processes in the last 25 years and are one of a couple companies in the world that is turned to when no one else can cast something accurately and strong enough. For example, that oversized titanium driver in your golf bag is there because Ruger had the know-how to make it work, for years they were the only ones in the world that could make them and have them hold up.

standingbear · February 16, 2003, 09:29 PM

ive got a m77 in .223.i mounted & sighted in a tasco 6-24x scope 10 years ago and have not had to tighten the rings or anything else.it hits what im aiming at and almost makes varmint hunting boring.darn good rifle.

Badger Arms · February 16, 2003, 09:38 PM

The barrels are soft, as are all barrels. They're supposed to be. They aren't too soft, though, they are just as soft as the best of them. As for 'cheap' cast parts, that's far from the truth. We're not talking sand-casting here, we are talking precision lost-wax casting also known as investment casting. It is precise, controlled, and a very good way to make many of the parts that go into a Ruger. They are not any more prone to breakage than any other manufacturer's parts.

If you read it elsewhere, there should have been a parade of people 'in the know' to raise the BS flag and call the poster a liar. If there weren't, I'd stay away from that forum.

cratz2 · February 16, 2003, 10:21 PM

One of my very favorite rifles is a M77 in 25-06. I've probably put 400 rounds through it and it seems to have been well loved and used by its previous owner. It's plenty accurate and feels completely solid. It seems to lock up more solidly than any of my Remingtons or Winchesters. Not sure what that's worth...

I do think the Rugers tend to be somewhat heavy but I consider that a plus. I've never had reason to carry a rifle for 20 miles and would rather have a rifle that held a bit steadier. But that's just me.

Jim Keenan · February 17, 2003, 12:21 AM

I will be the first to say that castings are NOT as strong as forgings or milling from good rolled stock. But the Rugers are designed to use high grade castings, which is a different ball game. They are a bit heavy, but far more than adequate for the task. I know of no part of the Ruger rifles that is either delicate or prone to breakage. The rifles are, if anything, over designed for strength.

Jim

tex_n_cal · February 17, 2003, 04:43 AM

Yeah, I will second that - castings might be heat treated to the same hardness and strength as forged or bar stock metals, but they will usually exhibit less ductility and toughness.

So what practical difference does that make? Not much, I guess. None of my eight Rugers seems to care.

Early Ruger Mk I's were acknowledged to have inconsistent barrels, that they outsourced. They frequently were rough on the inside. On the Mk II Model 77's, they started making barrels in-house, and supposedly made them of better quality.

I myself looked at a .338 Mk I, which I think I may buy just because I like the tang safety better than a wing safety. If it's a dog accuracy wise then I'll just have a new barrel installed

Omaha-BeenGlockin · February 17, 2003, 12:44 PM

Rugers soft and breakable?????? Just more internet BS----don't believe it.

Marshall · February 18, 2003, 04:25 AM

I have never known Ruger to make anything soft and breakable!

I think even their catalogues have a thin layer of kevlar, ROFL.

February 16, 2003, 07:19 PM	#1
Kestrel Member Join Date: December 26, 2002 Posts: 2,168	Do Ruger 77s Have Soft Barrels, Breakable Parts??? I always thought the Ruger 77 was considered a rugged rifle, but I read on another forum that they have soft barrels and cheap, cast parts that break. I know they are cast, but I didn't know the construction of these rifles was that fragile. Is this true? Thanks for any help, Steve

February 16, 2003, 07:42 PM	#3
Buckskinner Member Join Date: February 5, 2003 Location: Snoqualmie Valley, Washington Posts: 352	That's crap! IMHO that is... I have two M77 rifles, one in '06 and one in .338 WM. I have hunted for extended periods of time, in lots of various weather, and do a lot of shooting from benches too. I've NEver had any failures. My '06 is a fine rifle, and a tough mother. I went pig hunting in summer a few times, and slung on my back on an ATV it got coated in dust and grime so bad, the bolt was hard to open. I blew it off, wiped it with the corner of my shirt, and hunted until I got a shot. No misfires, ever. The .338 spent its early life as a guide's gun in AK. It has plenty of moose and bear experience,and comes with a complaint free pedigree. Okay, deeeeeeep breath... I think my Ruger's are good rifles. Maybe there's a difference with the Mark II's?

February 16, 2003, 08:31 PM	#5
El Tejon Member Join Date: December 24, 2002 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--meanwhile, back in the Wabash Valley . . . zzzzz. Posts: 17,898	Second what Sir G said. I am having a Ruger RSI that I took in as an alternative fee reworked right now. I can't wait to get it back. M77s usually need their barrels recrowned, at least that I've seen. Always helps them. __________________ I [heart] Wal-Mart threads.

February 16, 2003, 09:38 PM	#8
Badger Arms Member Join Date: January 1, 2003 Location: Harnett County, NC Posts: 3,668	The barrels are soft, as are all barrels. They're supposed to be. They aren't too soft, though, they are just as soft as the best of them. As for 'cheap' cast parts, that's far from the truth. We're not talking sand-casting here, we are talking precision lost-wax casting also known as investment casting. It is precise, controlled, and a very good way to make many of the parts that go into a Ruger. They are not any more prone to breakage than any other manufacturer's parts. If you read it elsewhere, there should have been a parade of people 'in the know' to raise the BS flag and call the poster a liar. If there weren't, I'd stay away from that forum. __________________ We may or may not worship God, but John Moses Browning made sure we can choose.

February 16, 2003, 10:21 PM	#9
cratz2 Member Join Date: December 24, 2002 Location: Central IN Posts: 4,238	One of my very favorite rifles is a M77 in 25-06. I've probably put 400 rounds through it and it seems to have been well loved and used by its previous owner. It's plenty accurate and feels completely solid. It seems to lock up more solidly than any of my Remingtons or Winchesters. Not sure what that's worth... I do think the Rugers tend to be somewhat heavy but I consider that a plus. I've never had reason to carry a rifle for 20 miles and would rather have a rifle that held a bit steadier. But that's just me. __________________ PhotoAlbum

February 16, 2003, 07:26 PM	#2
dakotasin Member Join Date: December 26, 2002 Location: Transient Posts: 4,362	i'm not a very big ruger fan myself, but i don't believe that stuff. any rifle subject to enough abuse is bound to break. like any rifle, ruger has strengths and weaknesess, but i wouldn't count fragility among its drawbacks.

February 16, 2003, 08:24 PM	#4
Sir Galahad member Join Date: January 20, 2003 Location: Camelot (er, Flagstaff, AZ) Posts: 1,332	I have a Ruger M77Mk2 International in .308 and it's a fine rifle. I love it. Rugers are rugged. Ruger makes rifles to be rugged. The action on mine is smooth and never had a problem with it. I am shooting milsurp ammo through it, too, without a problem. The scope rings on a Ruger are bombproof. I got them free with the rifle. I've mounted a scope and didn't use loctite and many hundred shots later, it's still tight and snug. I go through a 140 battle pack in a couple weeks with it. Accuracy wise, it's great. Scoped at 80 yards just fooling around with a towel-over-jeep-hood-rest, it made a 3 shot group you could cover with a penny. And that's with milsurp ammo. The only other bolt action I own is a Mosin Nagant if that helps you see where I place the Ruger in ruggedness. Oh, and if you're looking for short and handy, I strongly suggest the International.

February 16, 2003, 09:02 PM	#6
HSMITH Member Join Date: December 26, 2002 Posts: 4,933	Well, Ruger does get some low marks from me. Those low marks are for "prettyness", and weight, and rough bores. The rifles are not as refined to my eye as a M70 Classic or a Rem 700, and they are typically heavy for the class of rifles. The rough bores shoot smooth if broken in well, otherwise a little lapping makes cleaning a lot easier in the future. The rough bore does not hurt accuracy at all for shorter shot strings, say a box of shells long. Ruger has made their living on one simple premise, guns that are hell for stout and last forever. Over engineered and overbuilt are good descriptions for everything they make. They build guns you can count on every time for less money than anyone else in the class. Cast parts breaking and soft barrels are total BS. ALL barrels are relatively soft, and casting done right is as strong as a forged part. A lot of people don't know that Ruger is a recognized world leader in casting technology either, they have invented quite a few casting processes in the last 25 years and are one of a couple companies in the world that is turned to when no one else can cast something accurately and strong enough. For example, that oversized titanium driver in your golf bag is there because Ruger had the know-how to make it work, for years they were the only ones in the world that could make them and have them hold up.

February 16, 2003, 09:29 PM	#7
standingbear Member Join Date: December 25, 2002 Location: ohio Posts: 1,134	ive got a m77 in .223.i mounted & sighted in a tasco 6-24x scope 10 years ago and have not had to tighten the rings or anything else.it hits what im aiming at and almost makes varmint hunting boring.darn good rifle.

February 17, 2003, 12:21 AM	#10
Jim Keenan Member Join Date: December 31, 2002 Posts: 9,151	I will be the first to say that castings are NOT as strong as forgings or milling from good rolled stock. But the Rugers are designed to use high grade castings, which is a different ball game. They are a bit heavy, but far more than adequate for the task. I know of no part of the Ruger rifles that is either delicate or prone to breakage. The rifles are, if anything, over designed for strength. Jim

February 17, 2003, 04:43 AM	#11
tex_n_cal Member Join Date: January 5, 2003 Location: CA Posts: 1,160	Yeah, I will second that - castings might be heat treated to the same hardness and strength as forged or bar stock metals, but they will usually exhibit less ductility and toughness. So what practical difference does that make? Not much, I guess. None of my eight Rugers seems to care. Early Ruger Mk I's were acknowledged to have inconsistent barrels, that they outsourced. They frequently were rough on the inside. On the Mk II Model 77's, they started making barrels in-house, and supposedly made them of better quality. I myself looked at a .338 Mk I, which I think I may buy just because I like the tang safety better than a wing safety. If it's a dog accuracy wise then I'll just have a new barrel installed __________________ "...the wine was bad, but not dull. It took the enamel off your teeth and left it on the roof of your mouth..." - Ernest Hemmingway, A Farewell to Arms

February 17, 2003, 12:44 PM	#12
Omaha-BeenGlockin Member Join Date: December 26, 2002 Location: U.S.S.A. Posts: 1,652	Rugers soft and breakable?????? Just more internet BS----don't believe it.

February 18, 2003, 04:25 AM	#13
Marshall Member Join Date: December 26, 2002 Location: Oklahoma, Green Country Posts: 5,263	I have never known Ruger to make anything soft and breakable! I think even their catalogues have a thin layer of kevlar, ROFL. __________________ Marshall "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." Dwight Eisenhower "We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists." Patrick Henry The Best Snowblower & Lawnmower Forum

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode