Ruger Hawkeye Reputation?
- Thread starter schlitz45
- Start date
silicosys4
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2012
- Messages
- 4,419
M77's have a bad reputation for accuracy depending on the era. I remember reading something about a decade of various mfg's supplying inconsistent barrels.
While I'm sure there are accurate M77's out there, they are not known for it.
While I'm sure there are accurate M77's out there, they are not known for it.
Last edited:
Last edited:
I heard the same thing from a neighbor who owned ( and reloaded ) for a M77. He believed the lands started too far out from the chamber and accuracy fell off.
I have 4 M77's, 2 308 all weather versions , a 308 VT. and a 22 WMR VT. All have been super reliable and all 4 are sub MOA rifles. The 2 VT's are sub .5 MOA with factory ammo, and the 308 VT can hold .25 MOA with hand loads. That said, All 4 are "pre-Hawkeye" versions. Good luck
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 17,556
Folks have made up all kinds of stuff about Ruger M77’s for decades. The “lands are too far out” thing is a new one I have not before heard - guess the carriers of that nonsense have never handled a Weatherby… Some folks will tell you that the cast M77 action is too surface hard to be properly D&T’d for 1pc mounts or that they can’t be blueprinted, or that the actions are brittle so they can’t be rebarreled, some folks will say they are hard to glass bed, or some point to over-diameter barrel bores, some folks talk about CRF and claw extractors as less accurate… a lot of folks talk about a lot of different things, which ultimately, REALLY just come back to the fact customization of Ruger’s is less common, and gunsmiths commonly don’t have the action specific jigs and tooling to manage them, and Ruger doesn’t sell action components, even to smiths, so smiths make up excuses as to why they don’t want to take on the work - and yeah, use carbide cutters and bits if you’re doing any cutting on them, and yeah, blocking and bedding takes an extra day because of the extra step in setting pillars, and square bottoms take more focused prep than round tube R700 actions…
I’ve had a bunch of M77’s, MkII’s, and Hawkeyes, currently still keep 3 around. There is limited aftermarket support, and they’re relatively high priced hunting rifles - same barrels as Americans, but more expensive and not more accurate, and not as good of trigger. The action is heavy, which pushes a lot of balance between the hands. But they’re solid hunting rifles.
Block and bed the action, neutralize the sear angle, free float the barrel, free float the mag box, and most M77 MkII and Hawkeyes will shoot ~1/2-3/4moa with quality bullets and good loads. I took on a lot of MkII work as referrals over the years simply because other local smiths wouldn’t take them on. Easier to pass them off than own tooling for that ONE guy who asked for Ruger work once every 5 years… but they’re good rifles.
I can say for sure, your neighbor’s speculation about excessive freebore in M77’s causing accuracy issues is nonsense.
I’ve had a bunch of M77’s, MkII’s, and Hawkeyes, currently still keep 3 around. There is limited aftermarket support, and they’re relatively high priced hunting rifles - same barrels as Americans, but more expensive and not more accurate, and not as good of trigger. The action is heavy, which pushes a lot of balance between the hands. But they’re solid hunting rifles.
Block and bed the action, neutralize the sear angle, free float the barrel, free float the mag box, and most M77 MkII and Hawkeyes will shoot ~1/2-3/4moa with quality bullets and good loads. I took on a lot of MkII work as referrals over the years simply because other local smiths wouldn’t take them on. Easier to pass them off than own tooling for that ONE guy who asked for Ruger work once every 5 years… but they’re good rifles.
I can say for sure, your neighbor’s speculation about excessive freebore in M77’s causing accuracy issues is nonsense.
Right. He bot it just so he could complain about it and then sell it for less than he paid.
MacAR
Member
I really don't have an answer to your question, but I can relate my experience with the M77 and M77 mkII.
My first was an M77 tang safety 270; it belongs to my grandpa and my little brother currently has it. The trigger is meh at best, it's a pencil barrel, and it wears a Tasco Pronghorn scope; it will also absolutely drive tacks using factory Remington ammo. Never tried handloading for it, since there's no need to improve on perfection.
My second go-around wasn't nearly as rosy. I inherited an M77mkII in 25-06 from a relative. Bull barrel, heavy thing that wore a Bushnell 6-24x50 scope. I thought it'd be a great varmint/deer rifle, but it wouldn't group under 3" at 100 yards with several different factory and handloads. Never could make it shoot, so I let my dad have it. He's a "minute of pie plate" deer hunter and doesn't shoot much past 100 yards so the inaccuracy doesn't bother him. A very good friend of mine has an identical rifle, about 2000 numbers after this one, and it will absolutely shoot lights-out. I'm talking one hole groups at 100 yards, and very small groups all the way out to 300 yards. Honestly, I can't figure out what the difference is in the two guns; we tried the same ammo in each gun and the difference was remarkable. I won't make excuses for either gun, but I will say that I've never owned another Ruger rifle since. That said, I would consider a tang safety 77 in 257 or some other small-caliber like 22-250. They are great feeling guns, there's no denying that. But when you get one that will shoot you don't ever get rid of it.
Mac
My first was an M77 tang safety 270; it belongs to my grandpa and my little brother currently has it. The trigger is meh at best, it's a pencil barrel, and it wears a Tasco Pronghorn scope; it will also absolutely drive tacks using factory Remington ammo. Never tried handloading for it, since there's no need to improve on perfection.
My second go-around wasn't nearly as rosy. I inherited an M77mkII in 25-06 from a relative. Bull barrel, heavy thing that wore a Bushnell 6-24x50 scope. I thought it'd be a great varmint/deer rifle, but it wouldn't group under 3" at 100 yards with several different factory and handloads. Never could make it shoot, so I let my dad have it. He's a "minute of pie plate" deer hunter and doesn't shoot much past 100 yards so the inaccuracy doesn't bother him. A very good friend of mine has an identical rifle, about 2000 numbers after this one, and it will absolutely shoot lights-out. I'm talking one hole groups at 100 yards, and very small groups all the way out to 300 yards. Honestly, I can't figure out what the difference is in the two guns; we tried the same ammo in each gun and the difference was remarkable. I won't make excuses for either gun, but I will say that I've never owned another Ruger rifle since. That said, I would consider a tang safety 77 in 257 or some other small-caliber like 22-250. They are great feeling guns, there's no denying that. But when you get one that will shoot you don't ever get rid of it.
Mac
silicosys4
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2012
- Messages
- 4,419
How many of your rifles are built with a Ruger-contracted Wilson barrel? Supposedly the Douglas barrels Ruger used were good, but not so much when they switched to Wilson barrels from '73-'91, seems like most of the accuracy complaints originated around them specifically.
The original 77's earned a reputation for poor accuracy. Until 1992 Ruger didn't make their own barrels. They bought them from outside vendors and accuracy was all over the place. Some rifles got good barrels made by well-respected target barrel makers, others got cheap junk.
When the 77 MK-II came out in the early 90's Ruger was making their own barrels and accuracy improved noticeably.
The Hawkeye came in 2006 with several improvements including a MUCH better trigger. All of the 77's from each generation is respected as a durable, reliable rifle. The Hawkeye's are as accurate as any other hunting rifle.
For a variety of reasons you don't see many 77's of any generation used as target rifles. In fact the new American rifle is better suited for building an accurate target rifle
When the 77 MK-II came out in the early 90's Ruger was making their own barrels and accuracy improved noticeably.
The Hawkeye came in 2006 with several improvements including a MUCH better trigger. All of the 77's from each generation is respected as a durable, reliable rifle. The Hawkeye's are as accurate as any other hunting rifle.
For a variety of reasons you don't see many 77's of any generation used as target rifles. In fact the new American rifle is better suited for building an accurate target rifle
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 17,556
I’ve done smithing work and test fired on over a hundred MkII’s and Hawkeyes. He may have gotten a lemon, but I can say with certainty, that long freebores which lead to accuracy issues is not a common affliction of Ruger M77 MkII/Hawkeyes (and frankly, long freebores aren’t typically a problem for accuracy, in general). I’m not sure why you chose to be snarky about it, but one fluke rifle doesn’t sour the bushel. Of course, if his rifle WAS defective and DID have excessive freebore, why would he not return it to Ruger? They’re plainly known to have some of the best customer satisfaction support and service in the industry, and a freebore out of SAAMI spec is a clear defect. But knowing these rifles the way I do, and knowing how far we can jump bullets without accuracy issues, the cause doesn’t compute, nor does an implication of frequency.
The biggest “issue” for the M77 Hawkeyes now is the price point - they’re touted at higher prices than the American line, but don’t really perform better. They ARE commonly a prettier rifle than the Americans, and of course, they have their niche design as a controlled round feed with a big Mauser claw extractor, which feeds well into DGR uses, but a lot of folks just can’t convince themselves to buy a more expensive rifle just for the aesthetics.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 17,556
I have had 6 original M77’s (at least which I recall), and only remember working on maybe as many more. The rest, of literally over a hundred rifles, have been MkII’s and Hawkeyes, which all had Ruger CHF barrels (or those which were replaced by custom tubes).
As I mentioned above: block and bed the action, recut a neutral sear angle (or replace with aftermarket trigger), free float the barrel, float the mag box, lap the lugs for good measure, and develop a decent load with a decent bullet and even the factory Ruger tubes would produce 1/2-3/4moa groups. Just a LITTLE more work than the typical Savage or Rem 700, since the mag box needs attention and the front pillar is easier to set independently from the rear. My current big game hunting rifle is a Hawkeye All-Weather in 300 win mag, and I have hunted for nearly 30 years with a MkII Standard in 30-06.
I actually like the older 2 stage MkII trigger the best out of all of the M77 triggers, but they’re really hard to come by these days.
Between Timney, Jard, Rifle Basix, and careful sear work + Ernie’s springs, getting a respectable “too light for hunting, but still not a target trigger” for MkII’s and Hawkeyes is still pretty easy.
luv2safari
Member
The Wilson barrels were the real problem ones. I reluctantly passed a cherry 77 7X57 on to a happy buyer years back. He just wanted it for his collection. The Mk II rifles were my favorite. My 338 with a tuned Timney was the most accurate factory rifle I've ever owned. So I sold it. 
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 17,556
In fairness, the barrel sourcing issues which afflicted the original M77’s ended 2 model generations and over 30 years ago - not particularly pertinent to the M77 Hawkeye model line.
silicosys4
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2012
- Messages
- 4,419
You are correct, but in fairness, the OP asked
Ruger Hawkeye Reputation?
and the problems that afflicted earlier versions have very much soured current Hawkeye rifle reputation.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 17,556
Only for fudds and fools who don’t actually know anything about the Hawkeyes but like passing gunshop lore around to sound like they know something, because they heard someone talking about bad barrels from 30 years ago.
Probably the same folks who highly recommend Remington 700’s based on their grandpa’s rifle, despite the fact ownership and production have changed multiple times in the decades between, and the same folks hung up on Pre-‘64 Win 70’s…
MacAR
Member
Is something wrong with either of them? I have two 700's, they are from 1970 and 1983, and they shoot very well. Why would I not recommend them to someone who might be looking for a good used rifle? The same with the model 70; they were great guns. I've had a couple and wouldn't mind having another. You have good and bad in all brands; Ruger isn't any better than Remington and neither are any better (or worse) than Winchester. So like what you like and shoot what you like, but don't call those of us who don't like what you do fudds or fools.
Mac
Buzznrose
Member
I honestly never had any accuracy issues with the M77’s I’ve owned back in the late 80’s early 90’s, which included a .308, a 7MM RM, and an outstanding 77V in 22-250. I currently own a M77 Gen 1 in 30.06 what also shoots fine. I do plan to eventually take the accuracy enhancing steps VT suggested a while back on another thread but really haven’t had the need yet.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 17,556
Another which completely misses the point that products manufactured 30+ years ago in the case of the problematic Wilson barreled Ruger M77’s, or 40+ years ago in the case of your individual R700’s, do not represent current respective products being manufactured.
silicosys4
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2012
- Messages
- 4,419
Cool story bro, but it doesn't change the fact that Ruger sent out a lot of M77's with bad barrels in the past, and because of that the M77 still has a bad reputation for accuracy due to poor past products. Insulting people doesn't change that fact.
Reputations are important.
Last edited:
ditmo
Member
I own 2 hawkeye compacts and a 77 MKII.
Hawkeye Compact 7.62x39 is a 3/4 MOA with my handloads. With cheap surplus its under 2 MOA many times just over MOA
Hawkeye Compact .308 is 1 MOA with my handloads
77 MK II in .308 is a 1 1/2 MOA with my handloads. I've never gotten it better and is good enough for my uses. I could probably fiddle with it more and get grouping tighter but It does what I want.
All these are 5 shot groups
Now I also own Americans, but those have no soul. Better rifle for the money?
Hawkeye Compact 7.62x39 is a 3/4 MOA with my handloads. With cheap surplus its under 2 MOA many times just over MOA
Hawkeye Compact .308 is 1 MOA with my handloads
77 MK II in .308 is a 1 1/2 MOA with my handloads. I've never gotten it better and is good enough for my uses. I could probably fiddle with it more and get grouping tighter but It does what I want.
All these are 5 shot groups
Now I also own Americans, but those have no soul. Better rifle for the money?
dieselchief
Member
i find reply's based on opinion from folk who have moved on to custom rifles and would not look at factory rifles hilarious.
