I am planning to by a rifle soon to be used as my primary hunting rifle for deer, hogs, etc. I have been shooting a Ruger M77 Mk II 308, but I am planning to go ahead and trade up to the 30-06 for its added versatility with heavy bullets. I have narrowed my decision down to either the Win. Model 70 Classic Stainless or the Ruger M77 Mk II All-Weather. Both are stainless steel w/ black synthetic stocks.

Which is the better quality rifle? Which is more likely to have better accuracy? The Win has a 24" barrel, the Ruger has a 22". Does the newly manufactured Win Model 70 handle gas from a case failure better the the original Pre-64 guns?

What mounts and rings would be good for the Win Model 70?

Thanks for the help!
Mark in GA

The Ruger comes with rings and doesn't need bases, but needs a new trigger (about $100).

The Winchester comes with an easily adjustable trigger, but will need bases and rings (about $100).

Pick your poison.

I have both rifles, Id get the winchester , its just a nicer rifle. Ruger your going spend money on a trigger.

No problem with gas handling on the new winchester.

Id get leupold bases and rings. Less than $50 for standard bases and rings through midsouth shooters supply. Reverse front and rear depending on the scope. Talleys if you want to spend alot of money

IMO, the Winchester will give you better odds to being a good shooter. Too many (not all) Rugers suffer from accuracy issues.
The Win trigger, though "adjustable", lacks true adjustment w/o changing springs (best I've done is down to 4-1/2lbs).

Wait for the stainless M70 30-06 Featherweight to become available. It's a LOT lighter than the standard M70 with 24" barrel... that much beef and barrel length just aren't needed in an 06. I think the Ruger's a great gun, but once you factor in a bead blast for a too shiny stainless rifle and a new trigger you may as well get the M70 with its excellent "matte" stainless finish and top-notch adjustable hunting trigger.

get neither get a CZ instead.

quote:

Wait for the stainless M70 30-06 Featherweight to become available. It's a LOT lighter than the standard M70 with 24" barrel... that much beef and barrel length just aren't needed in an 06. I think the Ruger's a great gun, but once you factor in a bead blast for a too shiny stainless rifle and a new trigger you may as well get the M70 with its excellent "matte" stainless finish and top-notch adjustable hunting trigger.

Dang good advice! Get the Featherweight Stainless.

I know this is not what you asked but have you looked at the new Remington Stainless SPS rifles? All stainless with a gorgeous syn stock. You can find them at Sportsman Warehouse for $499. Blued versions are avaliable for $420.
No matter what you buy a nice set of Weaver bases and rings can be had for under $40

Go for the Win - More accurate - gas handling ok. A better out of the box product.

Roland

I happened to have purchased one of each of the rifles you mentioned in the last year, although not in 30-06. My observation is that the Ruger was more ready to go out of the box. The Winchester follower was chintzy, as was the stock. If you are looking to make a quality semi-custom rifle then I would go with the Winchester. If you are looking for a gun to use with minimal modification and basic expectations then I would get the Ruger.

FWIW, I prefer the Ruger. The Winchesters follower IS chintzy as is the stock, like Mikelravy said. The CZ is rough out of the box. The Ruger, IMHO, is the best value for the money. Just my $0.03 worth.
Best, Starcharvski.

quote:

Originally posted by Snowwolfe:
I know this is not what you asked but have you looked at the new Remington Stainless SPS rifles? All stainless with a gorgeous syn stock. You can find them at Sportsman Warehouse for $499. Blued versions are avaliable for $420.
No matter what you buy a nice set of Weaver bases and rings can be had for under $40

Dittos

Remingtons are better guns.


Without guns we are subjects, with guns we are citizens

I don't know what SPS you were looking at, but I fail to see georgeous in the stock. I think Remington has reached a new low with the SPS, totally functional with not an ounce of good looking finish. The stock is ok and the metal work looks like it was bead blasted with gravel out of my driveway, including the non jeweled bolt.

I am sure it is perfectly functional and accurate, but it is not pretty.

Aaron

I own a lot of Rugers, and love them.

I just love a model 70 all the more.

Can't go wrong with a Ruger, but also a Model 70 is just a great rifle.

I love my Rugers, but my Model 70s are my favorites.

cheers and good shooting
seafire

I'll assume we're talking about S/S versions of both guns, and that the M-70 is a FWT. (The Standard M-70 in 30-06 is too heavy.)

Both are good rifles, though you can get a dog from either maker. M-77's cost less and are more often available used. Unfortunately, they usually have a trigger like a Glock. Tuning is cheaper than replacement and works just as well. I also add an extra-strength mainspring, since they sometimes miss fire with the stock one. My local guy does this work for under $50, or about what he charges to tune a M-70 trigger. I prefer to have someone who knows what they're doing work on my triggers, and a new M-70 will definitely need some help. Just remember that if you return a Ruger to the factory for any reason, it will come back with any work undone and they will not return your old parts due to liability.

Any other work you might do such as bedding will be the same for both rifles. M-77 stocks are ugly but far tougher than M-70 stocks. Ruger rings are incredibly stout and the integral base system speaks for itself. You'll need rings and bases for the M-70, but if you get good ones and install them properly, I think the difference becomes purely theoretical. The problem here is that good ring/bases/installation can add significant cost.

If you want to keep costs to a bare minimum, and/or if you're keeping your 308, and/or if you hunt with only one rifle, get another Ruger. If this rifle might become a custom some day, or if you plan significant upgrades, you'll probably be happier in the long run with a M-70. Okie John.

Get a Win. 70.

I've only dealt w/ three or 4 Ruger 77s and all but one shot terribly. The Win 70s I've dealt w/ were accurate.

Now, If you want a real shooter, get a Remington 700 .

Good Luck!

Reloader

I like both, own both & would probably get the one that I could get the best price on. My son's MKII in 06 is a 1moa rifle. All I did was change the trigger out, $55.

You will gain nothing in field Ballistic performance going to a 30-06 over a 308.
For an increase in "killing" power go to a medium bore like a 35 Whelen, 350 Rem Mag, 9,3x62, 338 Win Mag, etc. For an increase in trajectory go to a 300 Mag.
Check out the Blaser R93.

I have had several Rugers and most, but not all, were or are pretty good. I have a little RSI in 243 that shoots very well. But then I had a 7x57 which did not stay here very long.
My No 1 in 7x57 is a tack driver with Hornady Custom ammo. Never had a Winchester.

Mark,

FWIW, I don't have any Rugers, just a pile of M70 Classic SS's, and some mostly older 700's that are too accurate to unload. But, since I've started shooting the M70 Classics, I've mostly quit buying 700's. (But I'm lusting for a 700 VSSF II)! But in my experience, the Classics will outshoot 700's in hunting rifles, on average. Personally, I love 'em. Recently, I sent two brand new rifles to my gunsmith for trigger jobs, one a 700 SS and the other a M70 Classic SS, I don't know how he does it, but the trigger on the M70 is definitely better than the 700. Talk about a glass rod breaking! (I have my hunting rifles set to 3-1/4 pounds). All my M70's perform flawlessly (so far, knock on wood).

My preference for rings and bases is definitely Burris Signature DD rings matched up to Leupold two-piece bases. My older rifles have the windage adjustable, non-DD mounts, but if I ever remove a scope for any reason, the mounts will be replaced with the aforementioned setup. Ring marks are now a thing of the past on your scopes, the windage-adjustable feature is now redundant (actually undesirable in my book), no need to lap rings or shim bases, and you can practically sight-in your rifle before you even touch the scopes adjustments! Good luck however you proceed!

quote:

Originally posted by Snowwolfe:
I know this is not what you asked but have you looked at the new Remington Stainless SPS rifles? All stainless with a gorgeous syn stock. You can find them at Sportsman Warehouse for $499. Blued versions are avaliable for $420.
No matter what you buy a nice set of Weaver bases and rings can be had for under $40

Remington rifles and Weaver rings and bases are about the cheapest made products in all of gundom.

For the price of a Remington SPS, one can buy a Ruger Model 77 MKII or a CZ 550 American and get a real rifle.

Actually the cheapest rifle to buy is a Savage. And they are without doubt the most accurate out of the box production rifle made. They just don't look or feel that good, lol........but man oh man can they ever shoot. I have used only weaver mounts and rings on every gun I owned due to there low weight and low cost. They perform wonderfully on my rifles up to and including the 450 Ackley. But life is about choices and having the money to do what pleases us. As long as people like what they spent there money on life is good. Happy shooting to everyone.

Nothing terribly wrong with either rifle, their little "issues" have been described already here. For me it's the Ruger - I've got the exact All-Weather model you talk about in '06 and swear by it. I dare say it's the most durable and rugged bolt rifle made - Period.

All my bolt guns are now Ruger M77/MkII's and probably always will be. Never had any problem with any of them. One of them has a slightly rough trigger and I plan on tinkering with that soon, but it's turning in 1" to 1.5" groups as-is and functions flawlessly. The scope rings on the Rugers are incredibly rugged, simple and strong.

I have nothing against the Rem 700 or Win 70's, just prefer the Rugers personally. They all have their Pro's n Con's, it's just a matter of personal preference I'd say. No rifle is perfect out of the box, all need some minor tinkering to get them "just right". What some people define as "accuracy" problems others would consider plenty acceptable for a sporting rifle, so depends on what you're looking for. I say 1" to 2" at 100 yards for deer or larger game in a sporting rifle is perfectly fine, others think anything that won't shoot under and Inch is ready for the scrap pile. For varmint rifles yes I agree, for deer or above I have trouble understanding why.

You've gotten some excellent input here, choose what suits your preferences and you'll not go wrong with either rifle in reality.

quote:

Originally posted by Snowwolfe:
Actually the cheapest rifle to buy is a Savage.

A Savage is inexpensive. A Remington is cheap. The two words are not synonyms.

Whats your point?

HP
The Chambers English Dictionary has;

inexpensive adj; not costing very much; cheap in price.

In my simple little mind that seems to indicate that they share some meaning.
It would be most odd if cheap were used to help define inexpensive, then to find it was pointing to something quite different.
But then, I am easily confused.

quote:

Originally posted by oldun:
HP
The Chambers English Dictionary has;

inexpensive adj; not costing very much; cheap in price.

In my simple little mind that seems to indicate that they share some meaning.
It would be most odd if cheap were used to help define inexpensive, then to find it was pointing to something quite different.
But then, I am easily confused.

There are ways to make a product inexpensively without cutting corners in quality by keeping overhead expenses low and efficiency high.

Then there are ways to make a product cheaply by skimping on materials and worksmanship.

See where I'm going with this?

Mark i have owned and shot all three the two you are asking about and the remington 700. Pick up all three and take the one that fits you the best. Ruger 77 win 70 rem 700 I've never had a trigger or accuracy problem with any of these rifles.Just buy the one that most comfortable to you . good luck Tanoose

Mark,
Having read my comment it looks as though my "never had a Winchester" could be construde as a criticism. This is not so, it is a simple statement of fact. The Winchester 70 is a great rifle. One of my hunting mates has a 70 Compact in 7mm-08, the trigger was dreadful but easily put right, it serves him well.
This will not help you decide, either the Win or the Ruger will be good. It might be time to toss a coin

HP,
No, and I don't care to follow.
The reason for pointing out that inexpensive and cheap are, on occasion, interchangeable was not semantic, your post to Snowwolfe struck me as contra bonus mores. Snowwolfes' use of cheap is perfectly acceptable. Further, he was right.
If I judge your comment incorrectly, I am sorry for doing so, In that case, the semantic point stands.

oldun, when it comes to comparing a Savage with a Remington, the words cheap and inexpensive do have different meanings.

But whatever, buy what you are happy with.

I've owned both the M77 MkII and the M70 FWT recently, both in 6.5X55. Though it was the most accurate rifle I'd ever owned (after bedding and trigger work), I didn't care for the M77 MkII and replaced it with the M70. The M70's bolt is smoother, the metalwork is nicer, and it shoots fine, if not as well as the Ruger.

While I didn't care for the Ruger's feel, I do have to note that Ruger barrels recently are phenomenal. After 50 to 100 rounds, cleaning the barrel consisted of no scrubbing and three patches - a dirty one, a gray one, and a clean one. I've seen custom, hand-lapped barrels that required more work than that. On two successsive five shot groups at 100 yards, four went into .26" and .31", with "flyers" opening each group to .8". Again, I don't care for the rifle, but it's not because of a deficit in the barrel.

Jaywalker

You can call the Remingtons cheap if you want but, I have two Remington adls sitting in the safe as we speak. One (7RM) will shoot .4" groups consistently the other (270 Win) that shoots .5-.6" consistently. Both were well under 400 dollars when purchased.

I would put those two rifles against any factory rifles in the same calibers in production. The Model 700s I have dealt w/ were just plain accurate.

They may be cheap but, they sure sre good .

Good Luck!

Reloader

For what is it worth I own Rugers, Savages, Remington and Winchesters. I perfer Remingtons but Savages in my experience are way more accurate out of the box. I have not had good luck with accuracy with Winchesters but when I go hunting during the winter in bad weather I always take a Winchester because its trigger is so simple I never have problems with ice getting inside of it and causing it to freeze up. I could easily live with any brand mentioned.

The boat paddle Ruger's are hard to find in Australia in any useful deer hunting calibers. Sort of tells you something doesn't it? A friend has had a Ruger .223 stainless/synthetic for nearly 10 years and the abuse its taken shocks me, but it still looks presentable and shoots well. I'd take the Ruger.
Cheers...
Con

The Winchester featherweight in 06 does make a very light weight mountain rifle , but be aware , if you want to use 06 loads on the heavier end they can kick like a mule.........

If comparing the stainless models , I feel the Ruger has a better quality synthetic stock than many of the factory rifles these days . They seem to be one cut above the typical tupperware....

My Dad has both a Winchester M70 classic and a Ruger M77 mkII(both stainless). He likes 'em both but gives a little more favoritism to the Ruger for personal reasons. You'll have to handle both and decide for yourself which one you like best. Both have three pos. safeties which are great but the Ruger's will let you lift the bolt and engage the safety. The Win. you have to close the bolt back to engage the safey. Small things yes but it's these little things that will help you decide. I'm more of a Ruger fan but will admit that either one is a fine rifle and would serve you well. Fiddle with them and decide for yourself. Good luck

I've experieced better accuracy with my Win.s but unless you plan to shoot over longer ranges I say it's a matter of taste. You'll probably want to replace the Ruger trigger. I got around the shinnier Ruger SS finish with cloth tape on the barrel during the season. I actually do the same thing with my SS M.70's. I'm with Virginia7 on trying the M.70 Featherweight. I don't know how you feel about Brownings but I have an A-Bolt Stanless Stalker in 30'06 I bought used that drives tacks.

FWIW, I've owned Rem 700's and Rugers, but not a Winchester (which have only ever inspired me in terms of their marketing)... I've seen and handled some woeful Win '70s tat I would be embarrased to own.

I guess my username says it all...

I own both the M70 & several Rugers. I prefer the Ruger Mark II over the current M70. My Rugers are more accurate and the action cylcles better than my 06 M70.

I'll take the current CRF Ruger Mark IIs all day long over the current M70. JMHO