Ruger 77 comment

[knzn]

Ruger 77 coment

I have been digging through some of my old "American Rifleman" magazines and reading Finn Aagaard articles. I liked his style. Anyway I have noticed on several ocasions he has spoken highly of the Ruger 77 rifle and had a number of them. Just got me to thinking that it seems like Anything built off a Mauser acton or Remention 700 action is the most often talked about especially when building up a rifle from scratch. Any comments?

 

[El Tejon]

And what you think a Ruger is but a slightly inverted ________?

 

[standingbear]

i have a m77 in 223,ive had no problems with it.i bought mine after shooting an older m77 in 22-250.mauser actions are very good actions.if i were to build my own rifle,it would have a mauser action and a heavy match grade barrel,cyro treated and a adjustable trigger.freefloated synthetic stock.my ruger m77 has a mauser type action,wood stock and free floated barrel.not my idea of the perfect rifle for varmits but hey...im limited financially and the gun works fine for me.it has held absolute zero from day 1 after it was sighted in,i can shoot groundhogs all day and not miss a beat.works fer me.its one rifle i'll never trade or sell.ill go hungry first.

 

[CWL]

Ruger M77 rifles are generally regarded as rugged rifles which provide 'acceptable accuracy' for North American game hunting applications, they are not as accurate as similiarly-priced rifles from the other major manufacturers though. I think that this is due to Ruger's manufacturing attitudes.

 

[ACP230]

My Ruger 77RL in .250 Savage is one of the most accurate rifles I have.

The only one that beats it is my M1A, a glass bedded, High Power match dedicated, target shooting machine.

 

[Art Eatman]

Years ago I had a 77 in .243 that would put five shots in one MOA with a 4X scope on it.

Then, in the '70s, I had a heavy-barrelled .220 Swift that was a tack-driver. One of the few cases of "after the sale blues", after I sold it.

I have a 77 Mk II in .223, sporter weight, that is a 1/2 MOA gun for three shot groups with almost any old ammo I've tried. Might be 1/2 MOA for five shots, slow fire, with "tailored" handloads. (Been too lazy to bother.)

Art

 

[pdh]

I understand that Ruger did not manufactor their own barrels.The barrels were contacted out from different companys.Thay say when you bought a M77 before the MII's came out...you could get a M77 with a good quality barrel that shoots wonderfully or one with a barrel with a lesser quality.
I remember reading when Ruger redesigned the M77....M77 MKII.......they began producing their own barrels.Hammer forged them.

I have a older m77 in 30-06 that shoots just as good as anything else I got.Bought my son a Stainless MkII in 30-06 and it is a very excellent shooter.

 

[H&Hhunter]

I've owned two M-77's one was a great rifle. That was a MkII satinless 06. The other was a M-77 in .270 and was a problem child.

Just recently I had magnum rilfe in .458 Lott for several weeks before it went on to it's rightfull owner. I was impressed and I think they are a great buy for the money.

The only thing that really turns me off about rugers is that 10Lb Lawyer trigger and it's not easily adjustable as a model 70 trigger. The model 70 trigger is far more bomb proof in terms of mechanical simplicity. Beyond that I think the Model 77 is pretty darn cool.

 

[Johnny Guest]

I like the M77, myself.

All four of mine were obtained used, and I haven't regreted any of 'em.

My first was a limited-edition .257 Roberts 77S, before they made this a standard chambering. Most consistently accurate rifle I've ever owned. It is almost TOO easy to hit with - - Spoils one for other rifles. It was used when I swapped for it.

Then I got a very standard 77R in .30-06, which was to be my "only" centerfire rifle around 1977. It was made before the 1976 "200th Year" issue. Dead solid reliable, shot a bunch of game with it. An honest inch-and-a-half rifle. Never got around to getting rid of the old .257, though.

I "rescued" a 77RL, also in '06, from being sold by a friend. Hard to believe, but this one is more accurate than the longer, heavier 77R. It is a joy to carry, but is tiring to shoot much for practice.

About a year ago, I got a 77RS in .338 WinMag. Prety accurate, as much as I can stand to shoot it. Something about the stock design makes the recoil seem pretty vigorous.

All my M77s are older rifles, and triggers range from good to excellent. The old ones are pretty easy to work on. The mark IIs are not, according to the 'smith who tuned the trigger on my .257.

Best,
Johnny

 

[Bob C]

I've always liked Ruger products, and the classic styling of the M-77 always appealed to. I've had several, and their accuracy has varied.

Very accurate ( 1" or less with good loads) were a .270 and a 30/06.

Mediocre accuracy ( 1.5") was with two .308's, a 7mm Rem. Mag., and a 7x57.

Poor accuracy ( 2.5") was with a 25/06.

All were the tang safety models.

 

[standingbear]

art...try those black hills 50 gr vmax loads in your 223.ive found them to be flat shootin fun,very consistant and a prarie dogs worst nightmare.

 

[Jim K]

Ruger actions and bolts are cast, something that puts many people off, even though quality castings are perfectly acceptable, and Ruger's castings are of the highest quality.

The main reason Mauser rifles are preferred by many is simply because they are cheap. I bought three VZ-24's for $69 each; I may never use the actions, but the quality is there and you can't beat the price.

The Remington receivers (and copies by several imitators) are good, and further lend themselves well to "blueprinting" and other accuracy work that is easier on the tubular Remington than on the more complex Ruger.

But out of the box, Rugers give good accuracy and are fine rifles for sport use.

Jim