Anyone tell me anything about a Ruger M77 MKII

[glockky]

I am looking at trading for a Ruger M77 MKII in 300 WSM. The rifle looks great but i am just not sure how good of a rifle they are. I remember hearing about ruger having some accuracy problems and didnt know if this was one of the rifles they had trouble with thanks for the info.

 

[R.W.Dale]

OK here's the poop

Any and all bad accuracy complaints you hear about the river can be BLAMED on that pos mini series ruger insists on tarnishing their good name by keeping in production.
These things shoot so bad they give the entire brand a bad Rep. Much like the bi-turbo did for Maserati


Barring folks getting an individual lemon (which happens with all makes) the ruger is an outstanding rifle and variation on the Mauser 98 pattern. I've owned over a half dozen and have never been disappointed.

 

[MolleMan]

mine is exceptional and a real tack driver. mines in a 7 mag

 

[crazysccrmd]

Good friend of mine has 3 M77s (22-250, 6mm, 270) and they are all tack drivers. Nice smooth M98 based action and a great looking and handling stock make them a attractive overall package.

 

[GooseGestapo]

Well, I guess it depends on your definition of a tack driver.

Of the near dozen Ruger rifles I've owned, only one "approaches" being a tack-driver, but since it's a "pile-driver" (ie: .375Ruger "Hawkeye"), it doesn't really matter that it's a near MOA shooter with ammo it "likes".

My M77/22Hornet (24"hvybbl S/S and laminated stock) after a lot of "coercion" (free-floated barrel, trigger job, glass bedding reciever) has after 2,000-3,000rds finally settled down to shooting near MOA with ammo it "likes". However 300-400rds I have to replace a wire ring I fit in between the bolt-halves so it will extract fired rounds..... Yeah, I know, I should send it back to Ruger for a new bolt, but, it works "as is" with my little modification....).

Only Ruger M77's I've seen that were "shooters" were a friends circa 1974 .270wcf that was near 1-hole with 130gr Hornady's over 55.0gr of IMR4350 for 3-shot groups, and a M77MkII stainless .30/06 that I bought for a friends wife who gave it to her husband as a christmas gift in '06. With 53.0gr of RL15 under a Sierra 150gr ProHunter would shoot MOA for 3-shots....

However, a M77/22Hornet carbine I had would shoot 4"+and no coercion "fixed" it; A Ruger #3 in .22K-Hornet would shoot 4"+ before, and after K-Hornet rechambering and other misc. work; A .257Robt M77 shot 2.5"+ after misc. work, and two Mini-14's that were 6"+ (.223 and a 7.62x39). Not to mention a gunsmith friend who's circa 1983 .338winmag wouldn't shoot under 5" with ANY load. He sent it back to Ruger. They returned it with a letter explaining that it "met their standard" for accuracy... He promptly ordered an "exact replacement" bbl from E.R.Shaw with exact contour, ect. With the new bbl, it shot sub-moa, w/o any additional work such as stock, trigger, ect. with same ammo as before. After that and an issue he had with Ruger SP101's as an Alabama Marine Police armorer, He wouldn't even touch a Ruger, even to "repair" one.......

If you are considering a .300WSM, get the Winchester M70. Especially one built in Spartenburg, SC by FN...... Much more likely to get a decent "shooter".
If you want an inexpensive "shooter" get a Savage M110 or Marlin X7S- or L.
For roughly the same price point, a Weatherby Vanguard are essentially guarenteed to shoot MOA or better.

Why do I keep buying Rugers ???? I like a challenge, and they're available used; "CHEAP"...... My .375 Hawkeye was less than the cost of 200rds (10boxes) of factory ammo.....it had sat on the used shelf for over 2yrs. price had dropped to 50% of original "asking" price. I got it for even less than that.... It's not the rifles that are expensive these day's....it's the ammo!!!
Do you get the message ????

 

[R.W.Dale]

Point of clarification. A 77/22hornet is not a 77mkII, a no3 is not a 77/mkII, a 77 from the 1970's is not a 77mkII

Ill concede that the split bolt 77/22hornets are a duds in the accuracy dot too. But unlike the mini nobody buys these to generate the bad press you get from the mini

posted via tapatalk using android.

 

[rbernie]

I have owned a half-dozen Ruger 77 MkIIs and all have been hunting-accurate (1.5" at 100yards for a five-shot group) and several have been sub-MOA within my normal hunting distances. I like them very much.

In fact, I currently own no Savages nor Remingtons nor Winchesters but I still have some Ruger 77 MkIIs.....

 

[jmr40]

When Ruger 1st produced the original model 77 with tang safety they purchasd their barrels from several different outside vendors. Accuracy varied from poor to fantastic depending on who made that particular barrel. That is where Ruger got tagged with making an inaccurate rifle.

When Ruger introduced the MK-II they started making their own barrels and accuracy has been much more consistent. The MK-II's still had very poor triggers as a rule. Once replaced, or worked over by a smith most MK-II's shoot as well as any other hunting rifle. In 2006 they made some slight cosmetic changes to the MK-II and starting putting in a much better factory trigger. They changed the name to Hawkeye. As a rule the Hawkeye's do tend to be the most accurate out of the box.

One tip on making Rugers as accurate as possible. Most shoot best with the front action screw as tight as you can possibly get it. Tighten the rear screw almost as tight, with the middle scrrew just as snug as needed to not fall out. Experimenting with different torque settings on the action screws will often make big differences in Rugers

 

[sig220mw]

I have had several rugers over the years. From 22-250 to 270 to 338 and all were accurate. As of now I only have the 22-250 and it is still very accurate.
When trying to sell or trade them at shows dealers look down their noses at them as if they aren't serious guns. I don't understand it but they do, that is unless they are selling them themselves. In the past few years ruger has been making their own barrels and they are indeed accurate. Yes you are going to get a lemon every now and then. Every maker turns out one now and then. I have had several of their revolvers and one automatic 22 pistol and loved them all. I have never had any ruger that didn't shoot well.

 

[longdayjake]

I am a ruger fan. I own 2 MKIIs and one Hawkeye. The mkII in .223 is the most accurate rifle I have ever shot. It cost $350 and out shoots my $1500 guns. I think it was just one of the few lucky ones. I have a hawkeye in .223 as well that I use for shooting rockchucks at 200-300 yards. I had to do some trigger and stock work on my other mkII in .30-06 to get it to where I could get a decent group but now it will shoot within an inch at 100 yards.

That said, I have heard a couple guys swear up and down while kicking dust in the air and spitting and cussing that Rugers are the worst rifles they ever touched. It seems that you either love them or hate them.

Anyway, here are some videos of me taking out some chucks at about 200 yards with the Hawkeye.

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

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

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

 

[68wj]

My older M77 (tang safety) shoots very well. It has a long chamber and my handloads for it jam the lands of my other rifles in the same caliber.

My .25-06 M77 MkII shoots tiny little groups all day, but has had some stock and trigger work.

Finally, an All Weather model with Timney trigger is finicky, but gets around 1 inch with 2 variations of handloads that I have found.

In conclusion, if I needed another bolt rifle, I wouldn't shy away from Ruger.

@R.W. Dale, My Mazerati does 185. I lost my license, now I don't drive. I hope you have that song stuck in your head now too.

 

[Art Eatman]

My 1998-vintage 77 Mk II in .223 was 1/2 MOA from the git-go, even with the tort-liability trigger. It's much easier to shoot, now, with one of Mr. Timney's fine products. And it's not at all picky about what bullet I load.

Prairie dogs don't like it. Even 300 yards isn't sufficient for them to survive.

 

[GooseGestapo]

re: RWDale; agreed!
But my point is that with Ruger, an accurate rifle is a "crap shoot".

 

[BigN]

I've had many Rugers over the years and currently have a Mark II in 220 Swift, very accurate and deadly for whatever you aim it at. I don't recall any mechanical problems with any Ruger I've ever owned.

 

[CoRoMo]

Mine in .270 fit three just under 3/4" with a cheap handload I put together; Hornady Interlock SP, Winchester primer, and a H4831 load. It never shot Core Lokt bullets well at all, they consistently group just over 2". I've also thought about free floating mine, but I'm going to first find the most accurate handload from its stock configuration. Surely it'll shoot better with something other than Interlocks.

 

[rodregier]

My 77MKII in .308 Win purchased significantly beyond a decade ago had poor accuracy. Pretty sure this was from the era when Ruger was still outsourcing barrel production.

After re-barrellling the accuracy was wildly improved.

 

[wombat13]

Ruger mkIIs and Hawkeyes are more accurate than most shooters and much more accurate than necessary for hunting rifles. Mine is more accurate than I am (for now).

My FIL has a M77mkII in .338WM and I have a Hawkeye in .300WM. He is a better shot than I am and can shoot four shots touching @ 100 yards with factory ammo in his rifle. When I do everything right, I can put together a 1 moa (and occasionally smaller) group of four. More common for me is a four shot group 0.5" high by 1.25 to 1.5" wide.

Note: We typically shoot four shot groups because that is what the rifle holds (3+1).

 

[R.W.Dale]

re: RWDale; agreed!
But my point is that with Ruger, an accurate rifle is a "crap shoot".

Only if you incist on buying ancient no3's and crappy 22 hornets.

If you pick up a 77mkII or newer (ie something made after the Carter administration) you stand just as big a chance of being pleased as with the remchester of your choice

posted via tapatalk using android.

 

[Slamfire]

My experience with my Ruger M77 is outstanding, after I bedded the action.
The barrel on my rifle is excellent, I believe this barrel is one of their new hammer forged barrels. I do not know when that came on line, but previous to that, Ruger barrels were substandard. Now they are very good.


I think the action design is really good. I like the claw, I like the wing safety that positively holds the firing pin back. I am not a fan of sear blocking safeties as there is very little metal contact between a sear and cocking piece pin nose, something that can be jarred, or as in the Remington M700, tricked out of position. The closer a safety gets to the M98 safety, the more positive the system becomes.


The factory bedding allowed the action to slide within the stock. You can see before and after pictures, and pictures of the bedding job on my Ruger M77 in this thread.

Last I fired this rifle at 1000 yards, I think I shot in the 190's. That is fine with a factory barrel.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=480098&highlight=Ruger+M77

 

[glockky]

thanks for the info guys i am gonna trade for it and give it a shot he bought it new 3 years ago