I tried to own a Ruger twice, It's never worked for me. I found a beautiful 77 MKII RSI in .270 once. I bought it on the spot and never really examined like I should have. The bolt would bind if any side pressure was on it at all. I figued I could probably get that fixed down the road and never worried about it. Then I took it to the range about 6 six times with different scopes, loads and once after glass bedding. Never could get it to do any better 4" at 100yds. Most went around 5" for 5 shot groups. Probably good enough for a 100yd deer gun, but hey, if your spending any time on this site you are some what of a rifle buff and expect better. I traded the rifle for a SS lamanite 77MKII in .243 Nice little rifle but it was heavy and didn't handle well. Took it to the range twice and couldn't get any better than 5" at 100yds. Never got too serious about tuning this one, just frustrated and pissed that a company would turn out crap like this.

After getting rid of the rugers I went back to my old 2 standby's Winchester and Mauser. I've been treated well ever since.

I like CRF rifles. I honestly can't justify a reason to own one, except I like them and it's my cash.

Terry

Pick the one you like best. I own several of both and to me, I like the overall looks bolt-to-trigger postion and trigger feel of the Model 70. Anybody can build a lemon once in a while, but at least you've selected from two good companies. jorge

Mark in GA

Why not buy a used rifle from the shops rack?

My choice would be a nice commercial FN, SAKO, Husqvarna mauser 98. Change the parts you want to and take it hunting

Cheers
/ JOHAN

I have owned both which were good experiences. Although, in 30-06 I have only used Rem and Win. Both good shooters. My Win 70 Fwt 30-06 is awesome. Hit a 'lope at 439 yards, first shot last December. Out of the box nice rifle. $ 40 trigger job is the only thing done to it.

I think Ruger is one of the better values in the market, but I just love the Win Fwt '06 for accuracy, aesthetics, feel and reliability.

Pre '64 Win. FW in 30-06, Leupold 2-7X scope. Last rifle you will ever need. Want is a whole other question.

I have owned all three and I like the model 70 best. I think Remington has cheapened things up quite a bit recently and I also am not a Ruger fan because I think they are just a cheap to produce gun. I personally think the model 70 is a much nicer rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by wiktor 2:
I think they are just a cheap to produce gun.

Ahhhhh, another misinformed fool thinking that cast actions are "cheap".

HP Shooter,
Tell us all in your infinite wisdom, are cast rifles more expensive to produce than a well machined product?? I thought it was a cost cutting measure.

wiktor, why don't you tell us, in quantifiable terms that engineers can understand, why are cast parts inferior to "machined" parts?

Also, do you believe that castings can be used 100% net?

I believe I said cheaper. Read what is written!! I happen to prefer machined parts. That does not make me a fool as you choose to imply. I am entitled to my preference!

I have ruger and winchester. The Ruger is a good value. I have a laminated SS 30-06 right now, and it is not a winchester but it is a world above that remington 710 pos.

Get the Winchester. Rugers 77 suck!

quote:

Originally posted by wiktor 2:
I believe I said cheaper. Read what is written!! I happen to prefer machined parts. That does not make me a fool as you choose to imply. I am entitled to my preference!

Wiktor, it's amazing some jackass would call someone a fool he's never met especially when said jackass apparently can't read... who's the fool?

I LIKE M77's... I PREFER the M70.

Thanks Brad, I appreciate the comment. I think that one look at the little picture under his name indicates what type of a person he (or he thinks he is) is. Anyway, on my Winchester Featherweight I have Weaver Grandslam bases and Burris Zee rings and it is a really nice setup. I used to have the Burris Signature rings that I really liked but they where a bit high so I went to Burris low Zee rings and lapped them and they worked out really well with a Burris Fullfield II 3X9. I think if you pick up and really look at both the Ruger and Winchester you will find the model 70 to be a much nicer rifle.Why don't they investment cast rifle barrels? It seems like then you would also be able to cast the rifling and bore because it is such a great manufacturing practice??!! It is a way to cheapen manufacturing costs, plain and simple.

Wiktor, we have similar taste in rifles! Top is my SS M70 Fwt in 30-06... Leupold, Weaver steel bases JB Welded to the receiver and a Leupold 2x7 in lapped, low Burris Zee's.

quote:

Originally posted by wiktor 2:
Thanks Brad, I appreciate the comment. I think that one look at the little picture under his name indicates what type of a person he (or he thinks he is) is. Anyway, on my Winchester Featherweight I have Weaver Grandslam bases and Burris Zee rings and it is a really nice setup. I used to have the Burris Signature rings that I really liked but they where a bit high so I went to Burris low Zee rings and lapped them and they worked out really well with a Burris Fullfield II 3X9. I think if you pick up and really look at both the Ruger and Winchester you will find the model 70 to be a much nicer rifle.Why don't they investment cast rifle barrels? It seems like then you would also be able to cast the rifling and bore because it is such a great manufacturing practice??!! It is a way to cheapen manufacturing costs, plain and simple.

wiktor, let's just say I have forgotten more about metal manufacturing methods than you will ever know.

Oh, and just in case you think I don't know what a "high quality" rifle is, I own several CZ and pre 64 Model 70s.

My original opinion still stands.

Brad those are a couple of really nice rifles!
HP Shooter, ohh I am sooo impressed! I guess if it makes you feel better about yourself, what the heck! Life's too short to worry about people like you!

HP:

you may be the "metal manufacturing" wizard of the world.

But when your leading statement calls someone a fool without giving them any benefit of the doubt (perhaps they could be misinformed, perhaps they could be ignorant but sincere, or even perhaps they could be less smart than you are, but certainly they are entitled to their opinion) you have some work to do on your tact and interpersonal skills...

Since you have so much more knowledgeable that the rest of us, perhaps you could enlighten us and share your wisdom is a less condescending way...

olarmy, I guess it's all right to call a dead man (William B. Ruger) a cheap bastard by inference. Is it not?

I think William B Ruger is/was a giant in the firearms industry, and I'm a stockholder in his company. I have no idea what your point is.

I prefer the M-70.

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
I have no idea what your point is.

Read this thread from when wiktor joined in, then look up the word inference in a dictionary. You just might, then.

ok: unless, I'm blind, wiktor's first post was:

"I have owned all three and I like the model 70 best. I think Remington has cheapened things up quite a bit recently and I also am not a Ruger fan because I think they are just a cheap to produce gun. I personally think the model 70 is a much nicer rifle."

Sounds to me is a guy who personally likes the M70 and thinks the Ruger is cheap to produce (never mentions casting)

And your response is that he is a FOOL 'cause he he thinks castings are cheap. I believe that would be call a nonsequitur...

Moreover, my response had nothing to do with William B. Ruger. It had everythiong to do with your calling someone a "fool" 'cause he likes M70's and thinks Rugers and Remingtons are cheap. Again, your response was a nonsequitur..

I think you and I are on entirely different wave lengths...

quote:

Read this thread from when wiktor joined in, then look up the word inference in a dictionary. You just might, then.

To quote Bugs, "what a maroon"...

Brad,

What is the rifle on the bottom? And what flavor Leupold is that?

Thanks

I think the Ruger is a pretty good rifle for the money, especially if you simply want a durable, reliable, inexpensive rifle that'll fundamentally get the job done in a workmanlike way. If you have a good Ruger that shoots, you have a worthwhile basic rifle. If you own a Ruger that simply won't shoot, and many of them don't, you have a dog. Yes, you do get scopemounts with the Ruger, but that is sort of like buying a box of 'Cracker Jack' for the toy surprise inside. In general, custom riflemakers stay away from the Ruger action altogether, which in and of itself speaks volumns about its basic design and desirability.

I like the Model 70 action a whole lot better than the Ruger, and so do top custom riflemakers. The receiver starts as a forged billet of the best chrome-moly steel, that is completely machined, then very carefully heat-treated. This billet resembles a solid piece of steel in the shape of a basic receiver more than it does anything else. Forging greatly improves the grain structure of the steel, and the resulting receiver is much smoother and better finished than the Ruger.

I also like the flat bottom and big, integral recoil lug of the Model 70 better, as well as the safety, which is much easier to work than that tiny Ruger safety, and the M70 safety cams back the cocking piece from the sear. The trigger system is much better with the M70, and bolt handle is better-shaped, the drilled receiver lends itself better to more scopemount options, etc............

AD

I think this whole deal comes down to the level of your expectations and your wallet. If you have to stay in the $500 or less range, then I would pass on both of these rifles and get either a Weatherby Vanguard or a Tikka (preferrably before the change to the T3 model). Either of these guns are GUARANTEED to shoot at least OK. Most will shoot VERY well. The Ruger and the Winchester are both a crap shoot in this respect. Also if you send back the occasional rifle that shoots 3" at 100 both companies will tell you that the rifle is "within specs". Col. Whelen had it right when he said that only accurate rifles are interesting, controlled feed or not.

If you are willing to spend in the $900 or less range, now you have some great choices. Kimber's 8400 300 WSM would be a great choice. If you really want the '06, you would be best of starting with a Winchester classic made in the mid 90's. Buy it with the intention of junking the barrel and putting on any one of the top makers barrels. That would be a rifle.

Finally, as for Rugers: The investment casting process is a great way to make gun parts in my opinion. The question becomes then, how much effort is being put toward finishing off the castings to end up with a finished part. Ruger has slipped in this regard. I looked a M77 last week that had exposed casting all over the place. You didn't see things like that on 77's made in the 80's. Also those old Rugers had actions that cycled like greased glass. What I'm getting to is that it's not the process of casting that makes the rifle great or not, it's the quality of the final finish applied to the action, bolt, safety, and striker assembly. Ruger isn't doing a very good job on these parts lately and I doubt if the rifles made today will ever end up as smooth as the old ones. Too bad.

Gabe

Mark,

Finding the two rifles you described should be fairly easy so you can compair them side by side. I have several of both makes and find there are pros and cons to each. I personaly suspect Winchester's quality control more than Rugers on recent guns.

Overall strength of the receivers is moot in my opinion as I doubt anyone would ever notice a difference in the field (even if there were any).

Benchrest accuracy is moot as well. .020" might meen the difference in placing top 10 or not in some circles, but variances in over an inch or so (group sizes) don't amount to a hill of beans in a medium-big game hunting rifle at normal distances. I wouldn't expect a match trigger out of the box from either of them, but both can be turned into decent hunting triggers.

30-06 is a good choice w/ broad useage. I prefer the option of iron sights on such a rifle (you would need to add sights to either rifle). The Ruger fits me better for iron sights. Ruger rings can be easily converted to QD rings so you don't have to carry a screwdriver to remove the scope in the field.

Either rifle can be bedded (pillar or not) so that shouldn't be an issue. You shouldn't notice much of a difference between 22" or 24" barrels in a '06 performance but I prefer the 22" for handling.

If the rifle feels awkward to you at the store, it will be the same in the field. You may find you don't like the feel of either of them and prefer something totally different. I'm thankful we have so many choices.

Good Luck!

I was at a good firearms shop last week and was handling some rifles. I have a Ruger M-77, the old style with the tang safety, in 7x57 and I am a fan. However, I did NOT like the S.S. laminated stock model I held at the shop. It had a wider, more sqared off stock in front of the reciever/floor plate that did NOT agree with the human contours of my hand. My rifle isn't like this. The trigger felt loose side-to-side and the bolt felt like it had polishing compound in it when I pulled it back to cycle another round. If MY new rifle felt and fit like this, I would NOT be happy. The new Remington CDL looked and handled like a dream. And I can't say enough about Browning A-Bolts (except they're made in Japan, but so is my Citori. It's a different world today, gentlemen.) Being that a rifle, to me at least, is a lifetime investment, that $150 difference (or whatever) would not mean much over the long term. That gritty bolt pull and mal-fitting forend would remind me forever that I got 2nd best.

Don't want to re-ignite a dead debate, but I recently purchased a 1957 Win '70 Super Grade in 243, so I thought I'd offer my thoughts about how it compares to a Ruger 77 MkII RBZ (270)(Stainless/laminate) built in about 1997 (?)...both rifles have Leupold Vari-X II 3-9x40 scopes

The Win cycles VERY nicely - it has a quality feel that is definitely lacking in any current winnie I've looked at, however, I'd be a bit worried in very dusty conditions - the tolerances are obviously very close, and I think it could 'clog' more readily than the Ruger - which being a bit 'slacker' is much quicker to cycle, and very forgiving in adverse conditions.

Both shoot like a house on fire (Ruger has a Timney trigger and bedded action) groups from both are less than 1" at 100yds (repeatable - not 'fluke' groups). Ruger has a very slight edge in this department, but I haven't adjusted the Win trigger yet.

Win is heavier, however both rifles 'feel' good, and are steady on offhand shots.

As I mentioned, the Winnie is a pre '64, and definitely looks and feels better and smoother than current Winnies, but that may be the result of wear.

I'd buy either again in a heartbeat...

I've been offered a fair bit of money for the Win, but it ain't for sale (yet!) I bought it for my son, and he really appreciates heritage in a firearm...

quote:

Which rifle should I buy? The Win Model 70 or Ruger M77 Mk II?

allow me to cast my vote for the M-70

I've stated my feelings about Ruger (and Weatherby) enough here.

Winchester

I have multiple examples of recent production from both Ruger and Win. The Rugers being MKII blue walnut sporters, the Win. M70 Featherweights, all .25 cal or smaller. Have had less trouble getting the Rugers to group, and both Featherweights had major burrs at the top of the feed ramp as well as other small quality issues. I prefer Rugers in spite of the great feel and looks of the Featherweights. I just have better luck with the Rugers for some reason.

mod 70 mod 70 mod 70...stuffing the ballot box

Mod 70 is the only way to go.


300shooter

I've got a Savage 110 in .223, a M70 FW in .22-250, and 2 Ruger tang safeties-a .25-06 which I paid less than $140 new (an oldie) and a 7mm Rem Mag. All 4 rifles consistently (but not always) turn in sub-moa groups with carefully worked up handloads. In addition, the .25-06 shoots closer to .5 MOA with W-W 120 gr Positive Expanding Point factory loads. Unfortunately, I can't get that bullet as a component for reloading, although the Hornady 120 gr HP shoots nearly as good. Guess I should get a Rem 700 next and see if it will match these?

quote:

Originally posted by woods:

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.

?? They are?? LOL

I would by the winchester, but a ruger ain't bad either, But i submit that tha .308 is plenty good, and evan though the .30,06 is a little better hunting round, I would keep my .308 and save my pennies for a magnum.
I like both the standard madel 70 and the featherweight, the difference is not much more than a pound !!! ...tj3006

Find out what the stock will be like. Of course a SS rifle is wanted but the stock that came with my 2002 SS M70 Classic was not useable. I have mentioned this cheap injection molded stock before. Even the recoil pad was very hard.

Maybe the stocks have changed or improved but if it's not a keeper then you will never be happy til you spend another $500 on a replacement.

I would buy a Kimber. In the end you will not have to replace anything. The Kimber Montana comes with a state of the art pillar bedded stock, a crisps adjustable trigger and from a company that cares.

The Kimber 8400 in 30-06 will be out in a few weeks. If you handload consider the 300 WSM and load it down a little.

From recent tests,the kimbers have been dogs in the accuracy department,but the price has been right up there with a semi custom rifle.

The rugers are better lately since they produce their barrels in house and the throats aren't as long as they used to be. So there is a better chance of accuracy out of the box. The rings usually need lapped and tweaked. The trigger can be cleaned up nicely by a good smith,for around 35 bucks.

The winchester anymore is hit or miss. The smith I use has had alot of them lately with problems. The trigger is arguably one of the best hunting triggers available. Buy the winny.