Ruger bolt action rifles - why are they not more popular?
- Thread starter Benelli Shooter
- Start date
- Status
351 WINCHESTER
Member
I've heard someone finally taught them how to make barrels, but it's too late as ruger has ruined their reputation as far as I'm concerned.
mondocomputerman
Member
not true
The NRA special edition rifle comes with a pair of 20s, BUT no other mini-14 comes with them.
Further, ruger customer service says that they won't sell any 20 rounders now, or ever (when asked about later after all the special edition gun was retired) to 'civilians'
I own a M77 25-06 Varmint/Target, it is a tricky gun to shoot well..It takes 4-5 minutes to get a 1/2 inch 100 yard group 3 shots, the bbl is accurate, but heat seems to have a slight warp on it,, shoots 1 inch if you do 3 shots in 1-2 minutes.
If I was to buy new all over, i'd get a Savage or Remington, but the Ruger is ok. I added 3 lbs of lead to it, it makes it shoot better, but harder to carry.
Ruger needs to step up on it's accuracy standards, I'd heard a lot of them are 2 inch group guns at best.
Scotty
If I was to buy new all over, i'd get a Savage or Remington, but the Ruger is ok. I added 3 lbs of lead to it, it makes it shoot better, but harder to carry.
Ruger needs to step up on it's accuracy standards, I'd heard a lot of them are 2 inch group guns at best.
Scotty
ranger335v
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2006
- Messages
- 3,797
" Ruger may do neat-o things with investment casting, but if I don't see the benefit in the price, what do I care as a customer?"
I don't own a Ruger 77 but I do like them. Actually, I think we do benefit from the Ruger cast actions, etc. They are rugged, reliable, nice looking, well designed, well made USA arms and the price reflects it. Accurate production line (inexpensive) barrels are a crap shoot no matter who makes them.
Howas are also good and are cheaper too - I do have one of them (an old Vanguard .243). Why shouldn't they be cheaper than Rugers, Howas are NOT made in the USA!
I don't own a Ruger 77 but I do like them. Actually, I think we do benefit from the Ruger cast actions, etc. They are rugged, reliable, nice looking, well designed, well made USA arms and the price reflects it. Accurate production line (inexpensive) barrels are a crap shoot no matter who makes them.
Howas are also good and are cheaper too - I do have one of them (an old Vanguard .243). Why shouldn't they be cheaper than Rugers, Howas are NOT made in the USA!
s2brutus
Member
I recently looked at a .30-'06 Tikka and thought it quite over-priced considering the number of manufacturing shortcuts, and - when I did a little internet looking - thought it was really insulting that they expect you to pay $50 for a low capacity 5 round PLASTIC mag. That REALLY slapped me in the face - "Hey, who'll give me $100 for two 5 round Orlites? Going once, going twice....." Ridiculous, IMO.markbo said:
The Savages - Well, the stocks on the basic models suck, whether synthetic or wood. They work a little clunky and clangy.
My primary deer rifle is an M77MkII and it just FEELS like good quality. Nice wood, very smooth well-fitted action, and (at least mine) accurate. Mine actually shoots a little better at 200 and 300 yards than it does at 100, in MOA terms. About 1.25 @ 100, but about 1.75 @ 200 and about 2.5 @ 300.
Go figure.....
s2brutus, I own a lot of different rifles and my experience with Rugers is similar to yours. If I had to survive in the wilderness a stainless Ruger would be the one I would trust. I would be willing to give up a little accuracy for dependability.
But don,t discount the Tikka too quickly. They are the most amazing rifles I have ever shot, period. My stainless 30-06 shoots groups from 3/8" to 1/2" at 100 and 3/4' to 1" at 200 consistently. This is from a rifle that weighs a pound less than and is $150-$200 less than a Ruger Hawkeye.
I truly did feel that I was getting raped when I paid $50 for a spare magazine. But when I considered that I could have spent $1500-$2000 on a rifle that did not shoot any better it eased the pain a bit. At that rate I could have bought a dozen magazines and come out ahead.
I know a lot of people are concerned about all the plastic parts but I have been cruising the internet gun forums for years and I have yet to hear about anyone breaking anything on one.
But don,t discount the Tikka too quickly. They are the most amazing rifles I have ever shot, period. My stainless 30-06 shoots groups from 3/8" to 1/2" at 100 and 3/4' to 1" at 200 consistently. This is from a rifle that weighs a pound less than and is $150-$200 less than a Ruger Hawkeye.
I truly did feel that I was getting raped when I paid $50 for a spare magazine. But when I considered that I could have spent $1500-$2000 on a rifle that did not shoot any better it eased the pain a bit. At that rate I could have bought a dozen magazines and come out ahead.
I know a lot of people are concerned about all the plastic parts but I have been cruising the internet gun forums for years and I have yet to hear about anyone breaking anything on one.
QUOTE][/QUOTE]
I'm not sure if you are seriously asking or being funny. I don't want to get into a bash fest on Tikka or Savage but they do several things to cut costs that are not beneficial to the quality of the gun IMO. Read Chuck Hawks article about Tikkas. They are the epitomy of manufacturing shortcuts. That's fine by me, and both Savages and Tikkas shoot VERY well. But they do some things that are noticebly sub-par to anyone who owns a truely fine firearm. One thing that pops to mind is Savage routers out the stock for a magazine well on single shot models. This negates the extra bedding area that a single shot reciever has. They do this to cut costs and use that same stock for other magazine models. This is just one example. I'm not saying the Savages or Tikkas are junk so go easy on the flaming please. I'm simply saying they each have several shortcomings that nobody seems to acknowledge on this forum. Tikka lost a lot of points with me when they tried to keep the blowing up stainless models hush hush a few years ago. Something that dangerous should have been made more public for the safety of Tikka's consumers IMO.
aka108
Member
The only decent Ruger were the early 77/22's. The rest, including handguns, are pure crap. I've owned a good number of them over the years, hoping they would be improved with time. Not so. They've all been sold off and I was happy to see them go down the road. Actions seemed good but barrels and accuracy were lower than poor.
Ash
Member
"The rest, including handguns, are pure crap."
You serious? Throwing the baby and bathwater and tub and bathroom out, aren't you? Ruger handguns, particularly revolvers and conventional autos, are known for being very rugged and reliable. Ruger revolvers are considered among the most durable and strongest. There are "Ruger only" loads for revolvers for this reason. Ruger autos aren't pretty, but they also work, and work, and work, and work.
I have never fired their hunting rifles, but I have a real hard time with the statement "accuracy were lower than poor." I do mean no offense, of course, but such blanket statements about products with so well an established reputation don't really say much.
You are entitled to your opinion and I will not fault that. I personally don't like Glocks. But I am not about to say they are pure crap because even I know that isn't true.
Ash
You serious? Throwing the baby and bathwater and tub and bathroom out, aren't you? Ruger handguns, particularly revolvers and conventional autos, are known for being very rugged and reliable. Ruger revolvers are considered among the most durable and strongest. There are "Ruger only" loads for revolvers for this reason. Ruger autos aren't pretty, but they also work, and work, and work, and work.
I have never fired their hunting rifles, but I have a real hard time with the statement "accuracy were lower than poor." I do mean no offense, of course, but such blanket statements about products with so well an established reputation don't really say much.
You are entitled to your opinion and I will not fault that. I personally don't like Glocks. But I am not about to say they are pure crap because even I know that isn't true.
Ash
ImARugerFan
Member
Yeah, he also didn't even mention the 10/22. I also don't think I would ever recommend any revolver other than the redhawk as a deer revolver.
Oohrah
Member
I bought a used but cared for 77/22Hornet. My plan was to put a custom
NorPac 17Hornet barrel on it. However, I got lucky with my first reloads of
35 gr. VMax Hornadys propelled by 13 grains of Lilgun powder. Wow, 10
rounds in a little over an inch. Will leave it as is, until the accuracy goes
south. Love the trigger also stock and light weight. It just plain looks
good! Don't like the fact only the expensive Ruger rings work on it.
Found some additional magazines at less than half of Rugers suggested
price was. Seems like all except the 10/22 mags are over priced
Over all function and looks, I really like it
NorPac 17Hornet barrel on it. However, I got lucky with my first reloads of
35 gr. VMax Hornadys propelled by 13 grains of Lilgun powder. Wow, 10
rounds in a little over an inch. Will leave it as is, until the accuracy goes
south. Love the trigger also stock and light weight. It just plain looks
good! Don't like the fact only the expensive Ruger rings work on it.
Found some additional magazines at less than half of Rugers suggested
price was. Seems like all except the 10/22 mags are over priced
Over all function and looks, I really like it
moooose102
Member
i dont know, i think reputation has a lot to do with it. when i think bolt action guns, i think winchester, remington, or weatherby. there are a lot of fine bolt action rifles out there, but these are the big 3 of bolt action rifles. untill ruger does something stupendous, or the quality of the others goes south. everybody else is going to have to play second fiddle. even though their quality is up to par. the big 3 have a heck of a lead. that in itself is hard to overcome. j.m.o.
MCgunner
Member
I like Ruger firearms, have a 10/22 and 6 handguns (just sold my SP101), but I never bought a M77, bad accuracy rep and I don't care about control round feeding. I'm a Remington/Savage owner. No bad accuracy rep there and, in fact, both are excellent with 1MOA or better accuracy. I have no doubt that there are many Rugers out there that can match the accuracy. Friend's kid has a .22-250 that will put 'em into 1/2 MOA with FACTORY ammo. But, I've been told that if you get one that WON'T shoot, there's nothing you can do to fix it. I don't have that many hunting rifles, anyway, so I doubt I'll ever own a M77. I'm real happy with two Remingtons and a Savage. They cover my needs just fine. I have a couple of odd rifles to hunt with, too that I don't use much, a sporterized SKS and a Rossi lever .357 magnum M92 copy.
Ruger's
My father purchased me a ruger m77 markII in 30-06. on my 15th bithrday that's been eleven years ago. had a bushnell 3x9x40 scope mounted bigest that would fit with the factory rings couldn't afford a taller set for the x 50 scope. paid 425 dollars total at the time this when remington 700 a-bdl's where close to 500. very accurate gun, the bolt is smooth with good action, never had it jam, blueing is still in good shap as with the walnut stock. out to 400 yards i can hit a 10 inch target all day long. but all in all the best rifle i own and would gladly buy another.
My father purchased me a ruger m77 markII in 30-06. on my 15th bithrday that's been eleven years ago. had a bushnell 3x9x40 scope mounted bigest that would fit with the factory rings couldn't afford a taller set for the x 50 scope. paid 425 dollars total at the time this when remington 700 a-bdl's where close to 500. very accurate gun, the bolt is smooth with good action, never had it jam, blueing is still in good shap as with the walnut stock. out to 400 yards i can hit a 10 inch target all day long. but all in all the best rifle i own and would gladly buy another.
MMCSRET
Member
I love the first generation 44 mag carbines and all the Blackhawks except the Bisleys. I do not like 10-22's. I like the service six. The Standard model 22 pistol is great, newer ones have degenerated with legal advice, other pistols are clubby in feel. I own and shoot a Colt Bisley, thats why I dislike Ruger Bisley, poor substitute.
horsemany, I am 100% serious. What are these huge, glaring 'problems' that everyone ignores in Savage and Tikka long guns?
Right on... The 10/22 is the highest selling rimifre rifle - and maybe rifle over all excluding military weapons - in American History. But what about the Super Redhawk? Or any number of variations of the Blackhawk and SuperBlackhawk? The Vaquero? Don't get me wrong, I have 1/2 dozen or more Redhawks, but they are no where CLOSE to being the only Ruger able to use to hunt.
That is a shockingly ingnorant statement.
Right on... The 10/22 is the highest selling rimifre rifle - and maybe rifle over all excluding military weapons - in American History. But what about the Super Redhawk? Or any number of variations of the Blackhawk and SuperBlackhawk? The Vaquero? Don't get me wrong, I have 1/2 dozen or more Redhawks, but they are no where CLOSE to being the only Ruger able to use to hunt.
After reading this long thread, I hardly know what to write . . . except a little more tolerance of diverse preferences would be nice.
Got my first Ruger over 30 years ago. Still have 5 Rugers. I glass bedded my M77 Mk I .243 many years ago. The trigger isn't perfect but I didn't pay the price for Canjar, Shilen or Timney. Did Ruger make some ugly plastic stocks? Yes, and how about some of those Remington creations (XP-100, .22s, etc)? Ruger walnut stocks are generally as nice as the walnut stocks of other factory rifles. No offense Remington-one of my favorites is my old 700 BDL .270 with my Brown Precision stock which I glass bedded (400+ yard heart shot on my 5 X 5 mule deer). Accuracy-my old Remington 788 .233 (which I also glass bedded) has that infamous 788 unadjustable trigger, a "hardwood" stock, and mediocre steel finish, but it will produce nice 10 shot MOA groups. The Ruger .243 will do MOA with 3 to 5 shots when I'm up to the task. Browning, Winchester, Colt . . . they have all made fabulous firearms and a few pieces of "lower" quality, design, or attractiveness. How about nice plastic grips on a Colt single action revolver or 1911? How about "checkering" pushed into the wood, like 60's and 70's Remington 700, 870, 1100, etc. Of course, I've also got a safe full of Browning, Winchester, and Remington firearms and I like 'em all. None are perfect, but I've never seen a factory production firearm (or even a one-of-a-kind custom) that is perfect for me.
Got my first Ruger over 30 years ago. Still have 5 Rugers. I glass bedded my M77 Mk I .243 many years ago. The trigger isn't perfect but I didn't pay the price for Canjar, Shilen or Timney. Did Ruger make some ugly plastic stocks? Yes, and how about some of those Remington creations (XP-100, .22s, etc)? Ruger walnut stocks are generally as nice as the walnut stocks of other factory rifles. No offense Remington-one of my favorites is my old 700 BDL .270 with my Brown Precision stock which I glass bedded (400+ yard heart shot on my 5 X 5 mule deer). Accuracy-my old Remington 788 .233 (which I also glass bedded) has that infamous 788 unadjustable trigger, a "hardwood" stock, and mediocre steel finish, but it will produce nice 10 shot MOA groups. The Ruger .243 will do MOA with 3 to 5 shots when I'm up to the task. Browning, Winchester, Colt . . . they have all made fabulous firearms and a few pieces of "lower" quality, design, or attractiveness. How about nice plastic grips on a Colt single action revolver or 1911? How about "checkering" pushed into the wood, like 60's and 70's Remington 700, 870, 1100, etc. Of course, I've also got a safe full of Browning, Winchester, and Remington firearms and I like 'em all. None are perfect, but I've never seen a factory production firearm (or even a one-of-a-kind custom) that is perfect for me.
Semmerling
Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2008
- Messages
- 128
Horsemany - the fact that Savage routers out a portion of the stock that doesn't need to be and the fact (that I have never heard) Tikka tried to hush-hush some stainless guns blowing up?
That is hardly a laundry list of poo-poo's for a rifle. Any and every manufacturer does what they can to reduce costs. Chucks' article is interesting, but the cost savings vs. quality argument can be made across all manufacturing today - not just firearms.
What specific 'indisputable weaknesses' occur in Savage and Tikka in your mind that make them inferior firearms? And inferior to what other rifles? You state they are inferior to "anyone who owns a truely fine firearm". Compare a Ferrari to a GTO and you can make the same statement. Or a Rolex to a Timex, ad nauseum. They are not meant to be 'truly fine firearms' in the sense of Coopers, Jarrets, Baers, or a long list of English gunmakers.
While I fully support they idea they are not in the same class, I really don't understand the 'inferior' part. Honestly. I am not trying to start a pissing match... I just have never read all the stuff here that you apparently have and my personal experience is that they work just fine. If anything, this same line of thinking can be used to describe Ruger's rifles, no?
That is hardly a laundry list of poo-poo's for a rifle. Any and every manufacturer does what they can to reduce costs. Chucks' article is interesting, but the cost savings vs. quality argument can be made across all manufacturing today - not just firearms.
What specific 'indisputable weaknesses' occur in Savage and Tikka in your mind that make them inferior firearms? And inferior to what other rifles? You state they are inferior to "anyone who owns a truely fine firearm". Compare a Ferrari to a GTO and you can make the same statement. Or a Rolex to a Timex, ad nauseum. They are not meant to be 'truly fine firearms' in the sense of Coopers, Jarrets, Baers, or a long list of English gunmakers.
While I fully support they idea they are not in the same class, I really don't understand the 'inferior' part. Honestly. I am not trying to start a pissing match... I just have never read all the stuff here that you apparently have and my personal experience is that they work just fine. If anything, this same line of thinking can be used to describe Ruger's rifles, no?
Markbo-Yes absolutely you could make the same argument about where Rugers are weak ie..aluminum floorplate, angled action screw, etc. I am simply saying we have a whole 5 pages of how horrible Rugers are, but I've never seen this written about other guns that are even worse IMO. I don't know if it's the younger generation that doesn't know the difference between a good quality item or what.
I got my first deer rifle in the 80's. At that time I got a Savage 110 and it was a functional deer rifle that shot good. But the Birch stock was uninspiring, the barrel nut was ugly and it was all around a cheaply built rifle. The general consensus when I got into this stuff was.......Savage builds cheap starter rifles.
Now 20 years later I get on the forums and it seems because Savage and Tikka are very accurate, everyone ignores how cheaply they are built in other ways. I realize accuracy is most important and I commend them for that, but is it illegal to say anything negative about Savage on this forum? The fact that I have to explain how Savage or Tikka could be less than perfect kinda makes the point.
I'm not saying you can't like what you like. I personally think there are guns that shoot just as good as the beloved Savage and Tikkas and have better triggers, fit & finish, less plastic, etc. That doesn't mean you can't prefer Savage or Tikka's if it's your thing. I just wonder why we jump on some mfg.'s and others get a free pass.
Use the search function to read about Tikka stainless barreled actions blowing up. They didn't even send out notices to people who registered guns in the serial no. range affected. They left it to the consumer to call them and ask if their gun might blow up. Kinda dangerous if you hadn't heard the news don't you think? Apparently they had bad metallurgy with their stainless barrels a few years ago. I guess they figured....Why make it too public and possibly lose gun sales?
I got my first deer rifle in the 80's. At that time I got a Savage 110 and it was a functional deer rifle that shot good. But the Birch stock was uninspiring, the barrel nut was ugly and it was all around a cheaply built rifle. The general consensus when I got into this stuff was.......Savage builds cheap starter rifles.
Now 20 years later I get on the forums and it seems because Savage and Tikka are very accurate, everyone ignores how cheaply they are built in other ways. I realize accuracy is most important and I commend them for that, but is it illegal to say anything negative about Savage on this forum? The fact that I have to explain how Savage or Tikka could be less than perfect kinda makes the point.
I'm not saying you can't like what you like. I personally think there are guns that shoot just as good as the beloved Savage and Tikkas and have better triggers, fit & finish, less plastic, etc. That doesn't mean you can't prefer Savage or Tikka's if it's your thing. I just wonder why we jump on some mfg.'s and others get a free pass.
Use the search function to read about Tikka stainless barreled actions blowing up. They didn't even send out notices to people who registered guns in the serial no. range affected. They left it to the consumer to call them and ask if their gun might blow up. Kinda dangerous if you hadn't heard the news don't you think? Apparently they had bad metallurgy with their stainless barrels a few years ago. I guess they figured....Why make it too public and possibly lose gun sales?
And that was the first time you answered WHAT about them don't you like. That's all I wanted to know. I will search on the Tikka issue. Indeed I have never heard of it before. From what I can find now, 4 years after the fact the barrel issue was not JUST Tikka, but Sako as well. Not exactly a slam against Tikka, but a slam against Sako as a whole.
Kind of along the same lines as them continuing to sell arms to Iran. Here is another interesting article from Chuck Hawk praising the Tikka. Wonder why he changed his mind so drastically:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/rugged_vs_refined.htm
- Status
