Ruger Target Rifle MarkII

[roc1]

I have been asking a lot of questions lately about different rifles as far as accuracy goes. I would like to know if the new Ruger MarkII rifles are as accurate as the Remingtons for example? How do they stack up agaisnt the comp?
Thanks
roc1

 

[jbech123]

On the whole, Rugers are less accurate in the varmint/target realm than savage or remington. I have not owned a ruger in a few years, I heard their barrels have been improved recently, so maybe they shoot better. Rugers have plenty going for them for hunting rifles -durable, 3 position safety, contolled round feed, ample accuracy for hunting, etc...but if target/long distance varmint is your game, overall savage/remington will probably give you better accuracy. Of course there are always exceptions and there are super accurate rugers out there, but they are not known for it.

 

[SHvar]

This one is very very accurate, it always has been. Years ago Ruger obtained the equipment to manufacture their own barrels, not outsourcing them since.
Keep in mind it has been many years, their barrels improved back then.
Dont confuse the accuracy of a mini 14 with their other rifles.

 

[IndianaBoy]

My Ruger M77 VT 220 Swift is the most accurate rifle I have ever shot.

This is coming from a guy who hates Ruger 10/22s, so I am not a Ruger fanatic.... but I am impressed with this rifle.

 

[Slamfire]

This tactical Ruger M77 MkII is very accurate. It needed to be bedded, something I did for the learning experience. Bedding was complicated by the angled front screw. I had to bed in two parts, part one was create pillars, second part was to bed the action.

After bedding, and removing a burr on the two stage trigger, this rifle is as accurate as any of other expensive target 308’s.

Since the pictures were taken, I have duct taped an old tee shirt to the stock for a cheek rest. Looks awful but it greatly improves my stock weld.

 

[something vague]

SlamFire1,

I would be interested in seeing more info and pics of your bedding proccess if possible. I have been thinking about bedding my Rugger M77 but have been scared away due to the angled recoil screw. I really don't know how to go about it and struggle to find info about it. What do you mean by bedding pillars? I've heard and seen pillar bedding before but do not see this in your photo. Very interested in you proccess.

 

[Slamfire]

I increased the diameter of the action screws. It took ten to twenty minutes of adjusting the drill table to get the angle perfect for the front action screw.

Back in the 70's, gunwriters were claiming that the angled front action screw would "draw" the action into the stock. The shills made enhaunced accuracy claims. All of which were and are rubbish. All that angled front action screw does is make it more difficult to bed this rifle.

The side to side dispersion in the unbedded target shows the action sliding around in the stock. Factory bedding was crude, huge, and sloppy. The angled front screw failed to keep the action into place. This got worse as the action pounded the sloppy wood bedding.



Drilled holes





I used Brownell's steel bed to make pillars. But first I coated the action screws with Johnson paste wax and increased their diameter with tape.



After letting steel bed cure, I was able to remove the trigger guard and action. Now I have a front pillar and a rear pillar which are level.





Using a dremel tool, I routed a lot of wood from the front pillar and around the rear.

Having the pillars in place meant I was able to route out a lot of wood but the action would be level. I wanted a thick layer layer of epoxy under the action and behind the recoil lug. The thicker the layer the stiffer the bedding.





I mixed up white Marine Tex epoxy, just for the contrast to see what was going on. I used the action screws to draw the action into the stock and squeeze out excess Marine Tex. Many would consider this horrible practice, but that's what I did.



If I were paying for the work, I would expect something neater, and I would consider globs of dried epoxy on the stock, and grinding tool marks on the stock unacceptable. What I did was not pretty, but it works.





When I shoot this barrel out, I will probably try to find an aftermarket stock with a very high cheek piece, and have a professional bed the thing when a new barrel is added.

Then, and only then, will people ooh and aah over it.

Till then, I will be shooting it with a duct taped tee shirt as a cheek piece.

 

[something vague]

I do like the pillar part of your bedding job. I would not have ever tried that myself, especially with the angled front recoil lug screw. I have a new rifle coming to me in about a week or so that should outshoot the heck out of my Ruger. Once I have the new rifle in my hands I intend to mess around with my Ruger to squeeze out some more accuracy and also practise bedding. If all goes well enough I plan to bed my Sako 75 Varmint (new rifle).

Thanks for the write up. Very helpfull.

 

[Slamfire]

Glad to be of help

 

[Loggerlee]

I think it's funny you all rip on the Mini 14,the ones I have used shoot real well,I just shot a coyote the other day,170 yards with a rangefinder,I shot her head on,in the middle of the chest with the open sights it comes with.(cheap Federal 55grain FMJ)
It strings rounds if you heat the barrel,but make the first shot count and mines been as accurate as any AR I've ever shot.(never had the tongs on a "target" AR admittedly)
Oh and I've got a M77MK2 stainless,not a target rifle,shoots about MOA off the bench,that's not fantastic,but it's as good as my Model 700.

 

[OrangePwrx9]

With handloads, I've been able to get all my m77s (I've got 5, one is a Mk I) to shoot MOA at 100 yards. The only one to do better than that is a stainless-synthetic Mk II in .223.

I have a few Remingtons (700s, 788s) that will easily shoot sub-MOA. Sometimes it took tinkering or an aftermarket stock to get them there. I have also had a few (700s, a 788, a 721) that wouldn't shoot MOA.

IMHO, the Remington is the more accurate rifle but it is built with less consistent quality. The Rugers seem more consistent overall.