Ruger bolt action rifles - why are they not more popular?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
115
Can someone explain something for me? Why aren't Ruger bolt action rifles more popular? I handled one at the gunshop yesterday. They have quite a few nice features:

1. Controlled round feed.
2. Nice walnut stock.
3. Integral base
4. Nice finish.
5. Free rings

Everyone loves the Winchester 70. The Ruger seemed to have all the same features. What gives?
 
This will open up a can of worms. Personally, I don't like the Ruger specific rings, don't like an integral base, don't like walnut for a gun I actually take out of the safe, and don't worship at the house of CRF, since I've never been attacked by a charging deer or rabbit. Add to that the fact that the ones I've shot (I know everyone on here with one shoots 1/4 MOA at 300) weren't very accurate, relative to other brands, and cost a lot.
 
Last edited:
For me...$$$$$

When I saw a Ruger Boltie that was what I wanted....well let's say that I was "Financially Deficient".

How I ended up with the Mossberg ATR-100 .30-06...With some careful perusing of the closeout racks & bins, I walked out with the ATR-100, 3-9x50 scope, rings, sling & swivels for under $325.
 
Bad triggers.
Ugly, clunky, castings.
Now they are putting their logo on the floorplate Im never going to buy another new Ruger rifle. I want a rifle, not a billboard.
 
Now, I love walnut on a rifle - and I take mine out. Ruger does make a synthetic stock (I've seen more synthetic Rugers than walnut, personally) For me, I just have rifles I like better. The Ruger has much going for it. It is easier to bed than the Remington 700 or my favorite, Mossberg 810 or any round-bottom receivers like the Savage 110.

It seems to me the two real problems are the proprietary mounting and the reputation for adequate but not stellar accuracy. The receiver is, in my opinion, positive because of the flat bottom. The CRF is nice and certainly is not a detriment. The stocks are generally pretty decent.

Ash
 
They are a superb hunting rifle.

Controlled round feed is nice
The triggers suck out of the box but once fixed by a gunsmith ($30) they can be excellent
The synthetic stocks are amongst the best in that price range
I've never yet come across one that wouldn't group less than 1MOA, which is plenty accurate enough for hunting
3 position safety is nice
The stainless ones DON'T RUST unlike almost every other stainless rifle around
The factory rings are very very solid.
You're never going to have a stuck case with that huge claw extractor.


And they look like a rifle should look.


I personally am a big fan, having owned and used many rifles, from anschutz's to zastavas, the ruger m77 is one of my favourites
 
I have an older Ruger M77 tang safety in 30-06 that I like very much. It has been shot a lot and taken a lot of game. I like the Ruger scope rings-fewer parts to come loose and they can be taken off and put back on without loss of zero to a great extent. Chevy vs Ford.
 
I have a couple Ruger 77MkIIs, and am fond of them. They are plenty accurate for hunting use inside of 'normal' ranges, but bench rifles they are not. If someone wants a range toy or ultra-LD platform, there are far better choices.

I don't mind the billboards so much. While the rings are very expensive should you need taller/shorter versions, they are very well made and VERY secure.

If I had to take one boltie out of the safe to venture into the great unknown for an indeterminate length of time, it would probably be my Ruger 77MkII Frontier in 7mm08.
 
They're a cheapened, investment-cast version of a venerable and well-crafted bolt mechanism. Plus, some people have an irrational hatred of Ruger. Their integrated mounts limit your ring choices severely. Etc.

But, if that doesn't bother you, then go with it.
 
I agree with the statements about some of the irrational Ruger hate out there. Also, somebody with a better grasp of firearms history correct me if necessary but there was a brief spell in the 70's where they outsourced their barrels and had a very high rate of lemons. This soured a few folks, but is no longer the case.
 
Downmarket manufacturing (cast receiver, crummy trigger, spotty accuracy, blah wood or cheapie synthetic stock).

Upmarket price.

Limited feature combinations (e.g. if I want a gray stainless standard or lightweight rifle with a laminate stock, I can't get it. Why not? I don't want a shiny stainless hunting rifle, or a cheap plastic stock on a $700 centerfire boltie.)

That's why I haven't bought one. 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? And if their offerings don't make sense (low-glare rifles for varmints or the range, and shiny ones for the field?!? ***?) there's nothing for me to buy anyway.

Now they offer Hogue stocks and stainless barreled actions. That's nice. For $200 less I can get a stainless Howa with the same stock, and I trust the accuracy of the Howa.

Ruger's CS is great. I kinda like Ruger, and their rings, too, for a hunting rifle anyway. But all of the above issues, added together, are enough to send me elsewhere -- and the guaranteed accuracy I got with my walnut .30-06 sure doesn't hurt. Yes, I use walnut in the field and I like it.

I'm not "bashing" here. The question was "Why are they not more popular?" And the above is why a 77 hasn't found its way into my safe yet.
 
Howa has a cast receiver, too.

Ash

Like I said, the Howa is $200 less. That's not pennies. The issue with the Ruger is downmarket manufacturing with an upmarket price. With the Howa, the consumer sees the benefit of a lower-priced manufacturing technique. There's nothing wrong with Ruger or Howa cast receivers; I just want to see the maker's cost savings reflected in the price I pay for the rifle, and with the Ruger, I don't.

And the Howas are consistently accurate (that cast receiver makes a great varmint gun, something you never hear about the Rugers), and they come with an adjustable trigger that can easily be set up to be decent, if not great.

It's not that the Ruger won't send lead downrange. I'm not saying they're junk. But where's that $200? That's why they're not more popular. When you can get something better for less money, a product is often not all that popular. That doesn't explain why Remingtons sell, but sometimes you can milk a name for a while -- not forever, though.
 
I won't argue with you. I once owned a Mossberg 1500, more identical to your Howa than a Weatherby, and it was a fine shooter - and cheaper than the Ruger.

Ash
 
"Also, somebody with a better grasp of firearms history correct me if necessary but there was a brief spell in the 70's where they outsourced their barrels and had a very high rate of lemons."

Could be, but in any event they didn't start making their own until 1990.

http://technology.calumet.purdue.ed...gazine - November- 2005 (Vol_ 53 - No_ 7).htm

(FWIW, this a heck of an article on hammer forged barrels in general)

"Preface

Many shooters don’t realize that barrels have always been hard to obtain, even in peacetime, due to a national and worldwide shortage of barrel-making capacity. Prior to 1990, Sturm, Ruger & Company purchased all rifle barrels used on their firearms. When it became impossible to purchase enough high quality barrels, Mr. William B. Ruger, Senior decided his company would make their own barrels, and he purchased a hammer forging machine. While the following technical information applies to most hammer forged barrels, it also tells of Ruger’s success in forging their own barrels. Remember, too, that forging equipment and processes are always being improved, and, as you read this, Ruger continues to experiment with the goal of further improving their barrels."
 
Like I said, the Howa is $200 less. That's not pennies. The issue with the Ruger is downmarket manufacturing with an upmarket price.
In my neck of the woods, Rugers are usually the same cost as a BDL/SPS but cheaper than a CDL or equivilent. Savages and Howas tend to be about a c-note cheaper, but not $200 cheaper. And I challenge the 'downmarket manufacturing' position; I fail to see anything that, say, a Rem 700 BDL brings to the table that makes it any more durable or finely finished than a equivilently priced Ruger. You can argue that casting is somehow 'downmarket' when compared to a forging, but most any aero or materials engineer could talk you out of THAT position pretty quickly.

My Frontier 77MkII in 7mm08 was $500 and my 7.62x39 77MkII was $550, both purchased in late summer/early fall of 2007. My Remington 700 SPS (aquired in the same timeframe) in 25-06 cost me about $550. The Remmie has the benefit of an adjustable trigger, but its fit and finish are HORRID when compared to either of my Rugers.

I've had a Howa, and like/liked it. I've had three, in fact.

But while the trigger in the Vanguard/Howa can be made LIGHTER than the Ruger, it cannot not be adjusted to have less creep (not without disabling the safety) and breaks no more cleanly. I actually PREFER my Ruger triggers over my Howa/Vanguard, because they're crisp. I can live with a 4.5lb trigger, so long as it breaks cleanly.

The bolt throw in my Rugers is equal to my Howas, but the bolt lift requires less force in the Rugers. As a result, I can get off a second snap shot from the Rugers faster than I can from the Howas.

In full power chamberings, I really prefer the longer 24" tube of the Howa over the 22" tube of the Rugers.

I prefer the Ruger ring design, but detest the pricetag that goes with it.

The Howas were slightly more accurate, but almost immeasurably so. Certainly, for field use they are both more than adequate.

Rugers fill a nitch, and they do it reasonably well. If that nitch isn't for you, then spending the dollars on a Ruger makes no sense. For example, Howa doesn't make a scout-style carbine; Ruger does. Howa doesn't make a 7.62x39; Ruger does.

But I want a 16" scout-style carbine chambered in a full-power cartridge, and I want a 7.62x39 bolt-action CRF carbine with a synthetic all-weather stock.

Ruger makes those. Nobody else does.
 
I think it is a regional thing to a certain extent. In some parts of the country they are quite popular. I own a couple and like a lot about them but they are not my first choice
 
Some of it is perceived lack of quality. I won't argue whether that is correct or not, but perceptions can be mistaken for reality. I agree that the AWB left a bad taste for some. Gunners tend to be stiff-necked people (that's a compliment in case you didn't think it was meant as one) and it will never change. For some it's as simple as why they vote Democrat, drive Chevys, or go to the local Church: It's what mom and dad had them do.

Most of the bolt rifles I have bought so far have been Rugers. I keep going back to them because I like them. The scope mounts were actually what drew me to Rugers in the first place, I can't think of any mounts that are as simple, foolproof, and positive. Nobody (short of maybe someone like Dakota Arms) makes a gun just like I want so I'm not going to get a gun out of the box and leave it alone. Since I'm in Alaska right now I'm carrying a M77 MkII Stainless with a black laminated stock in .338 Win Mag. I have had a trigger job done and added a Decelerator pad and a muzzle brake made by Barnes in American Fork, Utah. It's a great gun and I love shooting it.
 
You choose what's right for you.

I bought two old-model tang safety M77 rifles from a friend who was in financial trouble, $330 each. Not being much of a Ruger fan and not knowing anything about them, I came online to read up. Boy, I was crestfallen when I read the comments about "spotty accuracy." I thought I had made a big mistake buying both rifles.

Oh, well. I took ammo out to the field (7mm and .30-06) and I was pleasantly surprised! Both rifles shoot EXACTLY the same groups as my pre-64 Win Model 70 and my Remington 700. No complaints here.

I took one M77 on a deer hunt in December. A mulie crossed the road and ran straight up the hill. I ran to get out of the thick brush, raised the rifle offhand and fired into his spine at about 120 yards for a good kill. The rifle went right to my shoulder, it pointed naturally, and the controls were easy to manipulate without thinking.

So now I have another 'favorite rifle'. Internet lore isn't always what it's cracked up to be. Why aren't Rugers more popular? Probably because enough people haven't tried them to see if the internet posts are right or wrong.
 
"If they really wanted to improve their barrels, they'd quit hammer forging."

It hasn't hurt the accuracy of Sako and Tikka rifles, among others.


From the link I posted earlier:

"and the fact that only a few dozen people nationwide actually use this machinery compounds the mystery (eight people make ALL of Ruger’s forged barrels). However, as we have attempted to show in this article, hammer forging makes dimensionally uniform, smooth barrels which tend to err on the side of a properly tapered bore, and the process makes barrels quickly. Because of all of these advantages, most round factory barrels, including shotgun barrels, are hammer forged.

Why don’t custom gunsmiths use hammer forged barrels? Startup costs. The million dollars per forging machine price tag deters small users."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top