Newbie in need of some advice

[Thor06]

Hey all, its good to be here! Since I am permanently moved out and don't have a spot to work on my project car anymore, I have been looking for a new hobby to occupy my time, and in the past couple months I think I have decided on picking up shooting again. Most of the shooting I've done has been with my Marlin .22 with my friend Mike from 30-50 yards and typically at bottles, cans, targets, and squirrels. Now I'm looking to shoot longer distances and possibly get back into deer hunting. There's two ways that I can see going about this: buy a new rifle or upgrade parts of the Ruger that I've already got.

I want to shoot longer distances, and so I immediately thought I needed to go bigger. After a bit of drooling over higher power rifles, I did most of my looking into .300 Win Mag, WSM, and RUM cartridges, specifically in Remington 700's. Then I stumbled upon a thread on this website that had EShell's amazing collection of 700's and then started paying attention to what other people's target rifles were chambered in. After that .223, .243, .260, and particularly the .25-06 came into play. With the .300 Win Mag I like that its a big gun with a pretty flat trajectory, and I would like it if I could ever make it out west or up north to hunt some bigger game that might need to be taken from a good distance away. However, the .25-06 shoots almost as flat and I am sure wreaks a lot less hell on the shoulder.

While in the course of picking what brand to go with, I decided to look back on my Ruger M77 Mark II and see what people thought of it. In one thread someone asked for the best $600 gun and the M77 was recommended a lot, except one guy that came down on hard for having the cast barrel. I passively dismissed it and continued on with my research. Then it dawned on me while I was reading the thread about EShell's thread, I might have to have the Remington rebarreled anyway, why not just use the gun that I already own and rebarrel it to get rid of (one of) its biggest weaknesses? The gun is chambered in .308 Win by the way.

So before I ask for you guys' guidance, I should tell you what I am looking for the rifle to do. I'm looking to do mostly recreational target shooting, and I'd like to shoot "longer" distances and be able to shoot tight groups. By longer I mean I'd like to be functional up to somewhere between 500-800 yards depending on where I can shoot and my own ability to progress. I'd also like to hunt from time to time, hopefully get back in on the whitetail season and probably do some porcupine and other pesky critter removal.

So, what do you guys think? Should I just stick with the .308 and rebarrel it, or go with a Remington 700? I've pretty much given up on the idea of a .300 Win Mag as I know what a cannon they are to shoot, but the .25-06 isn't too bad is it? Crappy trigger aside, is the M77 Mark II worth the new barrel and a higher powered scope? I'd much rather upgrade the .308 as I already have it and can shoot it through the upgrade process, but I'd for sure like a round and rifle up to the task of 1 MOA accuracy or less at 500+ yards and if the Ruger chambered in .308 cant handle it then I'd like to start with something else right from the get go. Any other thoughts? Thanks for the help guys, its much appreciated!

 

[moooose102]

i guess part of the equasion is at what distance are you planing to shoot whitetais at? if you are thinking of shooting them @ 500+ yards, anything less than a 300 mag isnt very good charma. while most rifles will get the bullet there. at that kind of distance, there just isnt much energy left. but if you plan to keep the distances reasonable (less than 200 yards) then your 308 or 25-06 would be just fine. if you hold a 22lr just right, you can paper punch @ 800 yards. it doesnt take much energy to kill paper. but shooting tight groups at that distance takes a very special rifle, and shooter. no matter what the caliber.

 

[dmazur]

You should be able to rebuild your Ruger to make it more accurate.

By the way, Ruger uses an investment cast receiver...and some gunsmiths don't like it because of the angled screw at the front of the magazine. This is supposed to make bedding more difficult.

If you're looking at restocking it as well, you might consider Accurate Innovations. This isn't a tactical stock, but it has a very stable aluminum bedding frame, similar to some Bell & Carlson models, and it is available to fit your Ruger M77.

If you send them the barrelled action, they will fit the stock to your barrel profile.

With a quality barrel, like Douglas or Pac-Nor or Shilen, and a quality stock, you just need to put $1K of optics on top of it all, in a suitable mount and rings, and you're set...

(I did almost the same thing, but I used a Montana Rifle Company 1999 action instead of a Ruger action.)

 

[CZguy]

(I did almost the same thing, but I used a Montana Rifle Company 1999 action instead of a Ruger action.)

There is a world of difference between the two actions.

I think I would sell the Ruger on Gun broker, and start out with a Remington 700 action.

 

[dmazur]

What I meant was, I had a rifle built from an action, selecting barrel profile and stock, and that you could do something similar on an action of your choice.

The MRC is also an investment cast receiver, but is a "copy" of the Winchester Model 70. (I think it's interesting that it's made by a casting company owned by Ruger...)

Pac-Nor offers "action truing", which is recommended as part of the rebarrel job. They will work on Remington 700's, of course.

If you're going to replace the rifle, you might consider getting a heavy barrel 700 to start with. I think Remington calls them varmint models, or perhaps tactical or police.

Another $0.02 - I found it is not cheaper to have a rifle built to spec. Each smith has their costs, and they are all fighting low volume.

A fairly low cost way into a decent long-range rifle is the Savage F-T/R, which is available in .308. This is a heavy-barrel target rifle and has a very good reputation for accuracy. Price is right around $1400, if I remember right. With a $1000 optic, you are into this for around $2500, which is a lot cheaper than "purpose-built" F-Class rifles.

You should check out the site

http://longrangehunting.com/

There is a lot of information there on setting up a long range rifle for hunting, discussions of what an ethical distance might be, the difference between punching paper at 800 yds and hunting at 800 yds, optics, etc. There are other topics discussed, of course, but the emphasis is on long range.

Good luck!

 

[Thor06]

Wow, thanks for the great replies so far guys!

i guess part of the equasion is at what distance are you planing to shoot whitetais at?

Good call. For the next rifle season that I hunt (hopefully next season) I probably wont be doing any long range deer sniping, I'd probably keep it to less than 250 yards. That really got me thinking and I think it brought a couple conclusions out of my mind today. I realized that I want a rifle for two reasons: mostly to target and pest shoot but I'd like to work my way back into hunting too.

My Ruger is a perfectly functional deer rifle, IIRC we zeroed it at 150 yards and were getting around 2"-2.25" groups, which is what like 1.3-1.5 MOA? Not exactly a tack driver, but even at 250 yards thats roughly 3.5" groups, which is plenty good to hit the lungs and/or heart of a deer, and I'm sure that would come down with more practice and finding a load it liked better.

Being that I'm pretty well set on the deer front, the new rifle would be pretty much solely for fun shooting like squirrels, rabbits, porcupines, and targets... nothing that calls for a big bore rifle. Besides, why would I put my shoulder through the hell of a .300 win mag when a .22-250 will kill my prospective targets just as easily?

I like your advice, dmazur, about starting out with a heavy barrel rifle from the get go. Right now I've tentatively got my eye on a Remington 700 SPS Varmint chambered in .22-250. I've read plenty of reviews on them shooting sub .5 MOA with decent glass and good factory ammo, right out of the box. Sounds great to me! Its not terribly expensive to shoot and it'll be nice to my shoulder and my wallet. If I am feeling frisky, I might go for the 700 VL-SS with the thumb hole. I shot a gun with a thumb hole once and absolutely LOVED it, but I don't know if I care $400 more about a thumb hole or not. I think $400 more in ammo and practice would affect my shooting better than the stock. I'd still like a .300 win mag as I could definitely see my self going bigger game hunting and "deer sniping" once I am more comfortable, but I have a few years before I get there I suppose. Keep the comments coming, I like reading them.

 

[CZguy]

You might want to consider one of the CZs.

http://www.cz-usa.com/product_detail.php?id=49

 

[MachIVshooter]

I decided to look back on my Ruger M77 Mark II and see what people thought of it. In one thread someone asked for the best $600 gun and the M77 was recommended a lot, except one guy that came down on hard for having the cast barrel.

The receivers are cast. Barrels are not.

The M77 is a good rifle, just not as good as an M700. I have two Rugers, an M77 in 6mm Rem and an M77 Mk II Varmint in .220 Swift. Both shoot well, neither shoots as well as my Remington 700's. But the Ruger in .220 Cost a whole lot less than my Remington 700 LVSF .17 Rem. My little sister also has an M77 in .280 Rem. that she uses for deer and elk.

For hunting, the Ruger will be more than adequate. If you can afford it, the Remington would be a better choice.

As for chabering, you have lots of options. The .308 you have is a decent round, just doesn't have the reach of a 7mm Rem mag or .300 Win mag. If you're dead set on taking longer shots, then yes, you need to look at harder hitting cartrdiges.

About the .25-06, which just so happens to be my all-time favorite cartridge. It can be used on deer and antelope to ranges that most hunters cannot shoot, and on elk at more moderate ranges. But if you envision yourself taking 400 yard shots on bull elk, I'd suggest something that hits a little harder.