Ruger M77 Hawkeye - QQ Major issues

[BreechFace]

My GSR’s which are essentially Hawkeyes do not have those heavy casting marks. The bolt is a bit sticky but is easily polished in an evening which is what I do with every firearm I purchase.

 

[Obturation]

Buying anything sight unseen these days can be a problem from any manufacturer. The issues you point out are not only typical but somewhat expected. Sorry
Ruger is known for 2 things, robust designs and good customer service . you can expect casting marks, no way they're going to polish them out. I think you need to lower your expectation of production firearms. The wood should fit well but the rough finish is par for the course. See how it shoots, if it shoots well clean up the parts that bother you yourself and carry on. If there are actual issues ruger will definitely fix you up.

 

[WrongHanded]

So you bought a rifle that you never looked at, which you apparently didn't research at all, and are surprised that it doesn't meet up to your imagined expectations?

A simple internet search would have told you that Ruger firearms are frequently rough around the edges, and that investment casting is used for many of the parts. You could easily have discovered that the receiver and bolt were both investment cast. You could also have searched to see if there is an issue with Ruger's cast receivers and bolts breaking (there isn't by the way).

The M77 Hawkeye is made to be shot. Sand the sharp burrs down, oil it, and go shoot it.

 

[Frostbite]

I own one Ruger and agree with OP, finish could be improved. The difference is I knew I was buying cheap (.223/5.56 RAR Predator). It strikes primers lightly, many failures to fire, especially but not exclusively with low cost ammunition. Trigger could be improved, it would not hurt. Looking towards Tikka for a possible replacement someday, maybe Sako. Not discarding Browning X-Bolt at this point. Love the Browning blue. Don't know which is mechanically superior between Tikka and Browning, suspecting Tikka based on Internet reading. A Browning X-Bolt Hunter or Medallion would look good in my hands. I think I will wait for prices to lower a little or try to find a used safe queen. No hurry, still missing a decent trap shotgun before that. Found a used BT-99, have not bought it yet.

 

[Riomouse911]

There are many people who are loyal to certain rifles, brand loyalty is fine and even fun. Yes my screen name is a brand too - but I simply put that up because i thought there was a way to change it when making my account and just saw this brand on a leaflet infront of my pc (i have owned a Sauer but not any more, and I do like them), moving on. I have had no experience with Ruger up until now and am dumbfounded as to how a company with such poor QQ has managed to stay in business. Further I found no complaints about any of these issues online. This led me to believe either there is a strong brand-loyal crowd overlooking these issues, or, I have a lemon (evidence points towards the former). If anyone is from the Ruger fanclub, I do not aim to offend anyone, I am just going to point out the objective issues I have faced with the M77 Hawkeye. Where I am from, (OZ) the rifle was only available 6 hours drive so I had to BUY it have it transferred to a dealer local to me before I saw it. Lets get to it:

Background, I recently learned (after my purchase) that Ruger uses investment cast process to cast. Yes it is different from conventional cast. However, that difference is simply the process allows for a greater range of steels to be used (stainless, titanium etc), with greater detail (small parts with greater accuracy - better finish), not in strength. Cast steel, regardless of the process, is never as strong as forged. Argument I read is if its 'good enough for planes' - but it isnt, planes use forged for all areas requiring strength, and just like cars, not all planes are built equal. I have found some forum threads on other forums that mention the Ruger No1 proven to withstand 200PSI, yet, there is NO documented evidence. And even if this were the case, that does not prove the (cast v forged) argument. There is no argument, its simple fact, forged is far stronger than cast as the forging process strengthens steel.

For those that dont know, Ruger uses cast for almost everything except the barrel (because cast could never provide the tensile strength required) I cant stress this enough. A cast trigger guard etc I can live with. But, every little piece of steel Ruger uses appears to be CAST. Bolt, Receiver, extractor claw (really Ruger?) down to the detailed of the safety switch. Unimpressed? The cost savings from cast isnt enough for greedy Ruger to bother applying a small amount of machining to remove cast marks. The Ruger Hawkeye range comes in at about $1800 for their cheapest variant. Pick one up, look at it properly, cast marks on bolt handle etc. The inside of receiver has a very raw finish, its like sliding a bolt on 80 grit sand paper. A very cheaply manufactured rifle with a premium price. I do not know of a rifle brand that is finished in such poor craftsmanship and quality.

If the cast marks on every part of the rifle other than the barrel were not bad enough, the stock was not machined in properly to leave a large gap around the receiver. wood stain (yes it is stained) was on the Ruger badge on the bottom of the grip and grain was still porous. Yes the bolt handle has the flakey casting marks on it as does the whole bolt. It is not a effect in the image.

In summary issue with the Ruger hawkeye M77 range:
1. pitting marks from cast found on pretty much everything except barrel.
2. inside of receiver as rough as grinding gravel
3. cast mold marks on everything except barrel
4. poor stock fitting
5. stock stained with Zero QQ (NOT OILED FINISH).
6. Slop in the bolt when fully locked :|

For an almost $2000 rifle, if your happy with the above, go ahead, otherwise look elsewhere.... And literally anywhere else. Compared to a $600 Howa, the Howa looks like a level up in craftsmanship...

This will be the first and last Ruger I will ever purchase. If you look at Ruger Hawkeye M77 images from the internet (even Ruger website) and look at the bolt handle ring where it meets up with the Bolt, be prepared to have that finish across everything that isnt machined (pretty much only the outside surface of the receiver - pitting from cast marks.

See images below. Compare this to any of the rifles you have at home not made by Ruger and tell me if you would pay $2k for this level of QC.

Rifle has been sent to NIOA under warranty, I would not accept a $2k rifle in this condition.

View attachment 1123106
View attachment 1123107
View attachment 1123108
View attachment 1123109
View attachment 1123110
View attachment 1123112
View attachment 1123113
View attachment 1123114
View attachment 1123115
View attachment 1123120
View attachment 1123128
View attachment 1123129
View attachment 1123136

Wow. Sure looks like you got a gun that should have had some more attention prior to shipping. I can imagine how hard it is to be forced to drive half a continent to view a gun when we here can drive an hour to different stores and look at 100 of them. This makes it almost impossible to go over a gun before buying it, so you’re stuck with what you get when it comes in the mail.

Yes, that gun is rough. I wouldn’t be happy paying what you did for that rifle. But, if it is to be used in the field as a shooter and not a range prince, with the hassles you have to deal with I would probably overlook the cosmetics and go put it to use. (Almost all of my guns show signs of honest use after a while.)

Hopefully it gets cleaned up to your satisfaction, let us know when it comes back.

As for your paragraph about casting, Ruger has been casting firearms for decades and decades. The M77 began life in 1968 and has housed rounds up to .458 Lott and .416 Rigby in size. The .338 RCM has pressures to 62,300 psi, so the action is pretty darn stout. (I think the No. 1 part saying it was tested to 200PSI must be a typo, as I have air hoses for my pneumatic staple guns that are rated higher than 200 PSI.) The No. 1 houses the same sized cartridges as the M77 and more, with some of the factory Weatherby chamberings maxing at 65,000 psi. Again, millions of guns made with that process shows that they’re stout enough to shrug off firing stresses that will cause brass cartridge cases to fail.

Ruger is facing the same pressures that all older American gunmakers are facing; the retirements of senior employees, the lack of experience and/or commitment from more recent hires, a governing board or shareholders that constantly push to lower per-unit costs in the face of rising employee and material costs, etc. Final fit and finish certainly do suffer, as anyone in the past few years who has bought a Colt, S&W, Ruger, Remington, Marlin, (or more) can probably attest.

Again, that gun should have been taken care of in the factory before it was shipped and I hope it is fixed. But seeing the condition it arrived in just doesn’t surprise me anymore…which is sad.

Stay safe.

 

[LoonWulf]

I paid 450 for my last hawkeye. That was 2016, it was a blued .300wm. Nicest metal finish ive seen on anything since, tho generally my "expensive" gund are stainless and coated. Stock was nice also.

Ive noticed that most if not all stocks are stained, at least on the newer guns. My 99ish BDL was rhe last gun that the chips were the same color as the stock. I removed most of the staining from my turkish walnut stocked CZs because the nicks and dings were noticably lighter.

Again fine on a 500-1000 dollar gun as others jave said, but not something id pay a premium for.



IMO, Only having 2 available is a good sign to buy something else, unless your dead set on that rifle for some reason.

Personally i expect a Howa 1500 to have very similar fit and finish, and your average Tikka to be better, a Win 70 could be fantastic to meh, but usually better. I was mild unhappy with my Xbolt because of the trigger, but other wise i think its a pretty decent 1000-1500 dollar rifle dependent on options......

again just opinions, with my overwhelming one being you didnt get what you paid for, or actually wanted.

 

[Scout21]

Could you make the results viewable without voting? I'd like to get an idea of how many people have had issues, but I don't want to have to vote to do so.

 

[SwampWolf]

look at the bolt handle ring where it meets up with the Bolt,

At least it's "cast" in one piece; unlike some bolt-action rifles that have the handle brazed to the bolt body (the Remington Model 700 comes to mind) where it's not unknown (albeit rare) for the handle to break off the bolt. Your criticisms regarding poor finishing on your rifle seem valid enough. That said, I currently have four Ruger bolt-action rifles (two Model 77s and two MKIIs) that are accurate and very nicely finished. I'm not a Ruger "fanboy" simply because I've been happy with them. I own other bolt-action rifles, including those made by Howa, Browning and Savage, that I also like; I just like the Rugers better.

 

[Varminterror]

Could you make the results viewable without voting? I'd like to get an idea of how many people have had issues, but I don't want to have to vote to do so.

9:1 “No.”

 

[dh1633pm]

The underside of the bolt handle on my GSR. It has a seem. Never noticed.

 

[earlthegoat2]

The underside of the bolt handle on my GSR. It has a seem. Never noticed.

View attachment 1123262

Mine does too.

Next time I’ll go full custom.

 

[dh1633pm]

I don’t mind the seam, but the OP’s had bad wood to metal fit. That would have bothered me.

 

[JPSauer]

What is QQ mean?

QQ is a typo I mean QC.

I am probably wrong as always but I believe that you have gotten ahold of a rifle that was returned and which has been used and fitted with a different stock for whatever reason.

As to the casting marks, that is the difference between the original M77s and the later (current) Hawkeye M77 rifles, I think the earlier rifles they did clean up the casting marks, Ruger does not on the Hawkeyes. The casting marks bother me not at all, the Ruger is an investment cast receiver and it is as strong as any. But that gouge in the action that looks like a file mark and the misfit stock does look like enough for me to ask for a replacement rifle. Do not send it back for warranty, tell whoever you want a replacement rifle.

Sorry "a rifle that is returned" - This is not possible. We have strict registration practices in Australia, a firearm that has been registered before shows on the rego history. This was a brand new firearm, from supplier, to dealer, to me. Paperwork show this.

They can not offer a replacement as supplier has no stock and they will receive it in about 1 year. So it will be repair or refund (our consumer laws allow them to repair if possible).

The stain across bottom of stock logo also just such a rough job. With everyone still mentioning that cast is just as good. I'll type this once more, cast is cost effective, this should allow Ruger to finish the rifle better.
And yes, cast is sufficient in strength etc - but those saying "as strong" no, not as strong as forged. Good enough yes, as strong as forged? No, definitely no.

I mean, you get into car modification communities and you will never hear someone saying cast pistons are as good as forged. Why do forged exist? Why are you limited with PSI when using cast pistons? Why do high output for displacement engines use Forged? Come on guys, yes cast is adequate - but it isnt "the same" or "superior" to forged. I'm not going to waste time arguing the earth is round.

 

[JPSauer]

Current exchange rate is .67 to one AUD. Your rifle got the ship it, and forget it treatment. I have a singular M77 and it is light years away from yours.

is your stock fit like mine?

 

[JPSauer]

Current exchange rate is .67 to one AUD. Your rifle got the ship it, and forget it treatment. I have a singular M77 and it is light years away from yours.

is your stock fit like mine?

So you bought a rifle that you never looked at, which you apparently didn't research at all, and are surprised that it doesn't meet up to your imagined expectations?

A simple internet search would have told you that Ruger firearms are frequently rough around the edges, and that investment casting is used for many of the parts. You could easily have discovered that the receiver and bolt were both investment cast. You could also have searched to see if there is an issue with Ruger's cast receivers and bolts breaking (there isn't by the way).

The M77 Hawkeye is made to be shot. Sand the sharp burrs down, oil it, and go shoot it.

Hello,
I did research it alot! But couldnt find anyone saying negative things on reviews or even youtube videos of the Hawkeye stainless hunter. They all spoke very highly of it.

Again, investment cast, isnt the issue - once more - its a cheaper method that should have allowed Ruger to spend a little more time providing a nicer finish.

 

[Varminterror]

Exactly as expected - the OP started the thread complaining about cosmetic issues in a budget friendly rifle, and then took the opportunity to start brand bashing based on manufacturing methodology.

Ruger has been making reliable rifles for generations with plenty of provenance to refute your BS about cast vs. forged engine pistons as inapplicable for their rifles. Ruger M77’s have been used on every huntable continent to take every species of huntable game. It sucks that the stock didn’t fit well on yours, but I’m betting a few minutes LESS than the time you spent bitching here would have cleaned those up. I’m also betting the rifle shoots just fine.

 

[westernrover]

Who mislead you to believe the Ruger M77’s were “fine rifles”?

Rugers are and always have been working man’s rifles, at their finest.

How would you rate the No. 1? or compare it to the M77? I've always been keen to pick one up, but never seen one in person before. They appear to be fine rifles and are certainly unique -- not a lot of alternatives vis-a-vis bolt-actions or mausers. I certainly wouldn't expect them to compare to a fine double from Purdey, but I could hope they'd be better than what I'm seeing of this M77.

 

[3Crows]

Sorry "a rifle that is returned" - This is not possible. We have strict registration practices in Australia, a firearm that has been registered before shows on the rego history. This was a brand new firearm, from supplier, to dealer, to me. Paperwork show this.

They can not offer a replacement as supplier has no stock and they will receive it in about 1 year. So it will be repair or refund (our consumer laws allow them to repair if possible).

The stain across bottom of stock logo also just such a rough job. With everyone still mentioning that cast is just as good. I'll type this once more, cast is cost effective, this should allow Ruger to finish the rifle better.
And yes, cast is sufficient in strength etc - but those saying "as strong" no, not as strong as forged. Good enough yes, as strong as forged? No, definitely no.

I mean, you get into car modification communities and you will never hear someone saying cast pistons are as good as forged. Why do forged exist? Why are you limited with PSI when using cast pistons? Why do high output for displacement engines use Forged? Come on guys, yes cast is adequate - but it isnt "the same" or "superior" to forged. I'm not going to waste time arguing the earth is round.

You are mostly right but investment casting by Ruger is on par with forged for strength. This is not my area of engineering but I do know a little about it. You knew the rifle was investment cast, that is a hallmark process of many Ruger guns, though not all. I agree, the stock fit and finish is poor so you need not convince me, I would not have taken that rifle. I am sure you were afforded an inspection before the transfer, at least we are here. I would have refused that rifle. Not because of the casting marks but that strange file mark and the poor wood fit and staining.

Ed Harris excerpt:

In my experience I feel that investment casting as done at Ruger is far superior to forging because it reduces the stock removal necessary to make the finished part, and
permits use of alloys which cannot be machined by common stock removal
methods. Consequently, Ruger can use materials of a very low sulphur or
selenium content with a high hardenability (during heat treat) which provides greater
tensile and compressive strength than the lower alloys other
manufacturers much use because their manufacturing processes require
use of additives like sulphur or selenium to obtain acceptable
machinability.

The suitability of investment castings as developed by Ruger are completely adequate for the purpose and we can argue back and forth till Hades freezes over. You do not like this manufacturing process, I can appreciate that, then you should not have bought a Model 77.

 

[WrongHanded]

Hello,
I did research it alot! But couldnt find anyone saying negative things on reviews or even youtube videos of the Hawkeye stainless hunter. They all spoke very highly of it.

Again, investment cast, isnt the issue - once more - its a cheaper method that should have allowed Ruger to spend a little more time providing a nicer finish.

What you need to understand is that you chose to buy a more complicated and intricate (classic-ish) design of rifle, than most currently in production. So you're paying more for all those extra parts, particularly because they're stainless (which is more expensive). The cost to make them, finish them, and correctly install them. As far as the stock fit goes, wood quality depends highly on what can be sourced and what price can be negotiated. From acoustic guitars to axe handles, wood quality varies from one piece to the next. Could it have shrunk and dried out during shipping from the US (likely North East) to Australia? Seems possible.

But to put it in perspective for you, I have two Ruger rifles built on the M77 Hawkeye design. I'm left handed so the selection is limited. If I could find a left hand version of your rifle, chambered in .308Win or .30-06, that had the exact "quality control" issues yours does......I'd buy it right now!

I get it. The rifle is not all that you expected. What it is, is what it is. So either go shoot it, or send it back to Ruger for warranty work. I know what I'd do.

 

[westernrover]

I have Ruger single-action revolvers, which are investment cast. I have S&W that are forged. I've had problems with both but I would not attribute any of the problems to casting or forging. I have a recently made Ruger single action that had a big burr by the loading gate. That was caused by machining not casting and it would have been simple to roll the burr off at the factory before they finished it. It is a blued gun so I couldn't just file it off myself, which is exactly what I would have done were it stainless. I returned it to Ruger and they fixed it but returned it with a big blotch on the finish over the top of the barrel. I returned it again and they sent it back to me polished to a high gloss and deeply blued -- beyond anything I would expect of a Ruger. I'm completely happy with that cast gun. I've had several forged S&W that I've not been so happy with. I won't say the problems are because they're forged, but because S&W have overlooked flaws in fit and function. I do have one good one out of five -- so they're capable of making a good one, sometimes.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

I don't own any Ruger rifle anymore (just one older Ruger pistol and a current production revolver), so I didn't vote. The lack of polish wouldn't bother me but the wood-to-metal fit is simply unacceptable for a product offered to consumers for purchase. Reading this thread it's clear that a lot of the posters simply don't understand the reality of buying a gun in markets outside of North America, especially those like Australia. Returning it is an option but there don't seem to be a lot of good replacement options. Just thinking aloud, could you get a new stock and have it fitted? Obviously that would be throwing good money after bad if you didn't otherwise like the rifle. But there aren't a lot of other similar rifles with controlled round feed for that general price range, so far as I know, especially for purchase where you live.

If it were me I'd probably try to work with Ruger and see if I could get the rifle up to where I could live it. But I can understand if you're not willing to sink more time and money to fix something Ruger never should have shipped to begin with.

 

[JPSauer]

What you need to understand is that you chose to buy a more complicated and intricate (classic-ish) design of rifle, than most currently in production. So you're paying more for all those extra parts, particularly because they're stainless (which is more expensive). The cost to make them, finish them, and correctly install them. As far as the stock fit goes, wood quality depends highly on what can be sourced and what price can be negotiated. From acoustic guitars to axe handles, wood quality varies from one piece to the next. Could it have shrunk and dried out during shipping from the US (likely North East) to Australia? Seems possible.

Did you look at the images of the stock? Shrinkage?

The "more comlicated and intricate" design of the 98 action, I purchased a CZ 550 Ebony 3006 new last month for $1700AUD. Talk about detail, perfection - all forged. So more effort was put into the excellent high gloss finish with no machine marks, perfect stock fit with a beautiful piece of timber. All for $1700aud.

Also I never complained about the figure of the timber, simply the FIT - almost every response on this thread has agreed that the fit of the timber is unacceptable. The supplier agreed as did Ruger when I emailed them. This isnt a matter of me expecting above what I am paying for, I am simply expecting what I am paying for.

 

[JPSauer]

[QUOTE="I am sure you were afforded an inspection before the transfer, at least we are here. I would have refused that rifle. Not because of the casting marks but that strange file mark and the poor wood fit and staining.[/QUOTE]

I did not have a option to view before transfer. Purchase (different from transfer) is completed before transfer, full purchase, then it is transferred. If I had refused a transfer after viewing it at my dealer, I would have had to pay for storage fees, and then send it back to the gunshop (on my cost $200) and expect a refund after already paying $100 to have it sent here. So $300 out of pocket. I chose to send it to supplier under warranty with them paying postage costs to them- rural gunshop. Again, i didnt expect this in a new rifle - If I did, like many on this forum I wouldnt have purchased it.

 

[WrongHanded]

Did you look at the images of the stock? Shrinkage?

The "more comlicated and intricate" design of the 98 action, I purchased a CZ 550 Ebony 3006 new last month for $1700AUD. Talk about detail, perfection - all forged. So more effort was put into the excellent high gloss finish with no machine marks, perfect stock fit with a beautiful piece of timber. All for $1700aud.

Also I never complained about the figure of the timber, simply the FIT - almost every response on this thread has agreed that the fit of the timber is unacceptable. The supplier agreed as did Ruger when I emailed them. This isnt a matter of me expecting above what I am paying for, I am simply expecting what I am paying for.

I did look at the image of the stock. Looks like some big gaps. Could it have shrunk? Maybe yeah. I mean do you think Ruger just routed that one stock out larger somehow? Or do you think the receiver is just smaller than all the others they make?

I wouldn't assume that it definitely didn't shrink due to a drastic change in climate, along with who knows what environmental conditions during shipping. Because as you said earlier, you couldn't find any negative feedback online about that particular model.

From a quick internet search, it appears CZ rifles are made in the Czech Republic. The cost of labor is likely significantly less for CZ than for Ruger.

But hey, if the supplier and Ruger agreed that it's unacceptable, I guess they'll be taking care of it for you. So that's great.

 

[mshootnit]

That stock fitment is poor. And the rough metal finish is indicative of fast manufacturing with no extra time finishing the metal. I have 2 Hawkeyes right now. Both stainless synthetic. The stocks fit better than that. I would say my metal is in better shape than that, or maybe I never looked that close. Both of my rifles are accurate enough for my needs. They feed fire and extract reliably. The scope mounting situation where the bases are integral to the reciever, is rock solid. The safeties have no slop and positive detents. The LC6 triggers are passable. Ignition is positive, with strong strikes from the firing pin. The all-steel magazine and spring arrangement is very robust and feeds well. The bolts have no wobble in battery. The synthetic stocks are a higher grade than the cheaper plastics found on some other rifles.
So, all in all, the Hawkeyes I have are very serviceable and a joy to shoot. I would not hesitate to take them anywhere.
Mine are examples of Ruger production a few years ago. 711-80XXX, 711-89XXX

I never paid anywhere near 2000 for these. I do have an older Mark II and while it does have a more polished finish on the metal, itndid not come with the LC6 trigger and had to be worked on. It is a great shooter.