I never noticed the stocks on M77 MkII's. I have large hands though and that was one of the things I like about my Rugers is the way they feel and handle. It takes all kinds to make a world even in firearms.

I`ve had a 77/22 mag. It was just plain great, except for one thing. It couldnt keep accuracy when the temperature shifted. And the worst of all, it wasnt just a little. I could simply not trust it, so I sold it. Otherwise it was great to carry, and, other than mentioned, very reliable. For me, one thing counts over everything. I have to KNOW 100%, that the rifle will put the bullet EXACTLY where I aim when I pull the trigger. Therefore, I now use Blaser.

I guess looks are a matter of taste. I've alway liked the looks of Ruggers and the way they handle. I've never had a problem with a Ruger once I replaced the trigger. The triggers stink.
I do think they seem to take more fiddleng to shoot well bet they all shot well enough out of the box to hunt with. I like the all stainless construction. I love my stubby little ss 77/22 for squirrels.

I probably had a lemon, 7mm Rem Mag, couldn't keep 5 on the PAPER! Tried 5 factory loads, 2 scopes, 3 shooters. Returned to Ruger. They sent it back about 2 weeks later, at no charge. Unfortunatly, the results were no better. I sold it cheap just to get rid of it.
Now, here I am, buying another one! This is a used, .300 Winmag, with a Timney trigger.
By the way, if anyone has a magic load for 165 and 180gr bullets, let me know!

Owned a 77 in .35 Whelen for 13 years. Changed the stock to a composite and added a recoil pad for a longer LOP. 5 shots go into one ragged hole @ 100 yds with handloads. Elk, deer and hogs absolutely hate it.
Sako

FWIW my experience has been;
77 in 243, it would shoot excellent two shot groups, and was one of the most finicky rifle I have owned.
77 RSI in 243, great rifle.
77 in 7x57, nothing under 3 inch groups.
No 1 RSI in 7x57, great rifle.
Bisley 44 mag, great revolver.
When they are good they are very good, but Ruger do put out the occational klunker.

To be fair, I have shot 2 BRNO in 222, one was none too good the other, mine, is very accurate.

No rifle manufacturer is in the lemon producing business, but they do manage to sell one or two.

I am very, very, glad that some people don't like Ruger rifles. This helps keep the price of used Rugers down so that I can find bargains.
I buy the old tang safety Rugers without hesitation. Please, everyone, keep hating Rugers.

quote:

Originally posted by Old Elk Hunter:
Please, everyone, keep hating Rugers.

No Problem. Glad I can help out.

No more Rugers ever!

ZM

quote:

No more Rugers ever!

Thats probably being a bit strong but I certainly felt that way after a 6.5x55 I had and a 7mm Rem Mag, both lousy shooters a few years ago.

However I do keep on reading that Ruger uses better barrels now so maybe they would be better now. Plus an adjustable trigger on the latest ones.

Personally though I would buy a Tikka T3 anyday for their out of box accuracy, very smooth action and excellent trigger. I have 2 of them in 6.5x55 and 300wsm and they are both really good shooters.

Just remebered two more Rugers I've had,

a 77mk II in 6.5x55, it was one of the best shooting rifles I've owned. Why did I sell it? Oh yes got a stainless Ruger in 260 Rem which shot well enough but when the local gunsmitth bead blasted it and fitted a Dayton Traister trigger he told me the bolt closed on a NO GO gauge.
How the hell did that pass quality control?
HO Hum.

You never know what you're going to get when you buy a Ruger. Structurally it's a very well made rifle, quite durable.
We can all agree on that. When I was younger Ruger was known as the "Home of the $12.95 barrel." That label is brutal and will not endear your product to the gun buying public. It's only been in the last few years that Ruger has been making its own barrels. That's definitely a step in the right direction, but old horror stories die very slowly. Give them a couple more years, and we'll see how far the improvement has carried them. Just one mans opinion. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

I've owned rifles from Winchester, Remington, Weatherby, Mossbergs, Savage, and Brno (CZ) so I have some basis for comparison.

Currently all my rifles (except a CZ in 22LR) and handguns are Rugers. My wife and I both shoot No.1's in 270 for deer and antelope and occarionally elk, both rifles are sub MOA with handloads. I have a No.3 in 223, sub MOA also. I have a 35 Whelen, tang safety with the 1 in 16 twist factory barrel that shoots 2&1/2 inch+ groups with 250gr. Partitions that I took to Africa and killed almost everything with one shot anyway. I went back to the Speers in 250 which are solidly under 2 inches, I think I was afraid that the Speers wouldn't cut it in Africa or something, duh they worked on elk and bear, anyway... I'm having a tang safety M77 that started life as 30-06 converted to 9.3x62. I killed a moose with a Super Blackhawk 44 mag. I could go on but you get the point.

All my Rugers are factory parts, no aftermarket triggers or barrels, just some gunsmithing to smooth things out. I have used only Rugers exclucively for the last 10 years, but have used and owned them of and on since 1975. The Rugers have never failed to function as desired. Since I live in Montana and have the oppurtunity to shoot at least 6 to 8 head of big game every year, my rifles get more than a casual trip to the range for useage.

The same can not be said about Winchesters (safeties that don't function properly, generally poor gunsmithing) Remingtons (the safety from hell, extractors that break, and acuracy that wasn't near what they are "supposed" to exhibit) I am not bashing the other makers from hearsay, these are problems I actually experienced. Other makes displayed problems ranging from a stunning lack of accuracy, crap for stocks, whatever, I think I've seen it. Never had any problems with my Rugers.

I think it's because of all the bad Ruger barrel stories out there. I've had 4 M77's and one #1. Two of the M77s were the old style M77's and they shot patterns instead of groups. The third was a MKII in .223 and it was OK but nothing special. My fourth is a LH .300 WM and it took barrel lapping and a full lenght barrel bed to get it to shoot worth a hoot. My #1 in 7x57 is quite accurate.

They aren't my first choice but I don't hate them either.

I actually won a walnut stocked mk2 in .338. It would really shoot...shot much better than I could hold it. It fed 100%, had a pretty good trigger. The iron sights wouldn't win a beauty contest but, that rifle had everything else right. Sold it and bought a Win coyote. Wish I'd kept the .338.

Well just my 2 cents worth. I presently own 3 rifles 308 270 300win and every sa handgun they make along with a couple 10/22's and three mark2 22's and lastly the lowly 77/22. to say the least I've been a ruger fan for almost twenty years. handguns are tough and accurate. 10/22's are accurate. NONE of my 77's have shot well out of the box..all have been reworked..triggers,bedding, recoil pads and such ...they shoot ok but not up to what I feel other products can. My 77/22 in 22 hornet is a piece of junk..if i didn't have so many $$ in it I would use it as a fence post. I have tried everything and can not get groups any better than 4-5" @ 100yds. That is not acceptable! Ruger's two piece bolt is the culprit and is probably the worst design I have ever seen. Needless to say I will not be buying any more ruger rifles regardless of price. I expect my rifles to shoot well right out of the box..trigger work is expected on any factory rifle since we are such a society of litigation. Rugers have a great design they must get some barrels of good quality to make the package whole.NO MORE RUGERS FOR THIS KID.

Yet another Ruger, my memory aint what it used to be.
I had a 77 Ultrlight in 257 Roberts.
That was very accurate. After sighting it in at 100 yards, to be on point of aim at 150, a target was put up at 150 yards. On the target was a piece of A4 paper with a target patch stuck in the middle. Boom boom boom three holes in the patch.
I sold it when I could not tollerate the noise it made with the short barrel.
In summation my experince with Ruger has been mixed. Some are very good, some aint.
Never had a bad Remington.

I'm not a big fan of Ruger's either unless your talking about a 10-22 or SA revolvers.

I had a 243 varmint that I couldn't get to shoot, another 243 with the skeleton stock that was nasty from the bench, a RSI in .270 that wouldn't shoot, and the only gun I've ever seen break down on a hunt my brother in-law's 77 in 30-06.

So I stick with Remington 700's & 7's, and CZ'z. They function great and only fail to bring home the bacon due to user error.

The major problem with these type discussions is that people who own the product being discussed have a tendency to be very opinionated. A person who has a good shooting Ruger just can't see that someone elses Ruger will come up a bummer. Instead of considering himself fortunate, he sees everyone else as dead wrong. When anyone lines up dogmatic on either side of the discussion, for all practical purposes it is doomed so far as being meaningful. I guess it's just the way we humans are. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

quote:

Originally posted by Cal Sibley:
The major problem with these type discussions is that people who own the product being discussed have a tendency to be very opinionated. A person who has a good shooting Ruger just can't see that someone elses Ruger will come up a bummer. Instead of considering himself fortunate, he sees everyone else as dead wrong. When anyone lines up dogmatic on either side of the discussion, for all practical purposes it is doomed so far as being meaningful. I guess it's just the way we humans are. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

Actually you could substitute Remington or Winchester or Savage or CZ, etc. for the word Ruger. The absolute worst POS rifle I ever bought was a brand new Remington M700 BDL in 1992. A group of 4 inches and it would have been celebration time. When I contacted Remington the letter they sent back said that groups of that size were â€within company standardsâ€. There was nothing wrong with the rifle so they wouldn’t do anything about it. The few posters that are venting their displeasure at a Ruger they have/had are not representive of the majority of Ruger owners. Lawdog

The last post hit the nail on the head. I posted my experiences with Ruger's as examples of why I am not a fan.

But after considerable effort and not being satisfied with the results, I decided it was just easier to not buy Ruger rifles and save the hassle.

So that is why when someone asks me what brand of rifle to buy, I cannot in good faith suggest Ruger.

Also, what's "bashing," anyway?

Personally, I'd say "bashing" is someone who says "All Rugers (or Remingtons or Winchesters, etc) suck!" Opinions without facts, in other words.

If twenty guys say "My Ruger's trigger sucks - it's too heavy and creepy," I wouldn't call that "bashing." That's twenty guys reporting facts as they see them, and I'd personally give that good weight. The reporters are credible.

I'd give less weight to the same twenty guys who said, "My buddy said his Ruger's trigger sucks," since it wasn't his observation, and since I haven't read anything his buddy has said, how can I judge his reasonableness? That's poor credibility.

On the far end of the spectrum, I give zero credibility to anyone who says, "Ruger screwed me. PM me for details." Expose your evidence or take your underhanded rumours somewhere else. A person who would do that has lost his credibility with me forever, for the subject he posted on and for every post in the future. That's just flat wrong.

When things get emotional, I think about college faculty political fights over budgets, and so forth. Someone once said, "Emotions run so high because the stakes are so small." It's likely we get carried away from time to time because we're judging from different standpoints. Some look for "perfection," and some look for "good enough," and the two sometimes don't communicate well.

Jaywalker

quote:

Originally posted by AaroninUtah:
Rugers are decent guns. They work, are reliable and are fairly inexpensive. But they lack soul. The character needed to be distinctive just isn't there. I am sure many will disagree with me, but that is what I think. Aaron

Obviously, you are not familiar with the Ruger No. 1A or No. 1 RSI.....

A local gunsmith told me that he thinks Remingtons are a tad more accurate than Rugersout of the box but he hardly ever has a Ruger in for repair but he makes a good living fixing Remingtons.

You guys may find my obesrvations in this post interesting. I certainly was suprised by what I found.

quote:

Originally posted by El Deguello:

quote:

Originally posted by AaroninUtah:
Rugers are decent guns. They work, are reliable and are fairly inexpensive. But they lack soul. The character needed to be distinctive just isn't there. I am sure many will disagree with me, but that is what I think. Aaron

Obviously, you are not familiar with the Ruger No. 1A or No. 1 RSI.....

Never owned a #1 ah, but I will

Terry

Because we've already bashed the matchkings and 45-70's to death!
My limited experience with Model 77's and #1's has been favorable.

I've said it before and I'll say again, the Ruger RSI no 1 sure is pretty and I'm glad to say the one I have is a straight shooter!

I don't know there are 3 I wish I had back. 2 were Tang safety 7x57 and an 06 and the other a 338 MK II was a huge judgment error on my part.

I have three Rugers. I have an old model 77 300 win mag with the tang safety. I have another 300 win mag MKII stainless with a H S Precision stock, and I have a 270 win MKII stainless with a laminated stock.

I had a lot of trouble getting the 270 to shoot good groups and after a while I was ready to tear off the barrel and make something else out of it. A friend who is a gunsmith and builds custom rifles talked me out of that idea and suggested that I continue to look for my load. I found that load, and today it is one of the finest shooting rifles I own.

The 300 win mag MKII shot like a house of fire. Then one day it started punching through the primers with a load which I had been using for nearly ten years. After that the firing pin would not make proper contact with the primer and failed to shoot. I sent the rifle to Ruger. They changed practically everything in the rifle and even corrected headspace, sent it back to me all at no charge!Great customer service. I shot the rifle and it was grouping incredibly good. When I got to the tenth shot, it punched through the primer and quit shooting after that. I plan on sending it back and when I get it back I'll use a totally new batch of components and load for it again. I fired these same loads out of my old model 300 and it shoots them without any problem, and with no signs of pressure.

Would I let this discourage me from buying or owning another Ruger... NO. I have Remingtons and Winchesters and I have had problems with them too. I also have friends that have had problems with their Remingtons, Winchesters, and Brownings.

I think it's all a matter of personal taste.

Alfredo,

Punching through primers (and thereby freezing the bolt with molten primer) was the main reason I sold the MkII.

It's funny - I used to look for what worked best, and now I just want something that works.

Jaywalker

My newest, old Ruger is a 1982 M77 tang safety in 7mag. Shot 4 factory loads through it, all 160gr. The Accubonds grouped at 2", the Partitions at 1.25", the TBBCs at 1.5", the Remington Coreloc Bonded at 3/8". Guess that's the factory load for this rifle. Can't wait to handload!
My old M77 .308 is a .75" shooter at 100 yds (after free floating), and my M77/22 is pretty good also especially for off-bench rifle practice. In fact, I won't shoot the 7mag much when I can practice with the .308 downloaded and the .22. Same trigger on all 4# crisp.
Personally I've had nothing but good luck with these rifles, and I also own Brownings and Remingtons.

Well, I had a Ruger M77 RSI that couldn't keep a group on paper at 50 yds with any ammo I tried in it, factory or hand loads. The Ruger M77 MK II Standard in 30/06 is a tack driver as is the M77 MKII All-weather in 243. While we are on the subject of rifles that should be used for doorstops, I had a Winchester (typing the name hits my gag reflex) Classic "New pre-64" in 7MMSTW that I couldn't get the bolt to open without setting the butt on the ground and stomping the it open. I was so frustrated with it I traded it in on Remington 700 SenderoSF in 338 UltraMag that is awesome. The only thing I have done on it to accurize it is trigger adjustment. I don't care what brand you shoot there are lemons from all of them. I met a guy that had a Cooper rifle that he had nothing good to say about, but his other Coopers were works of perfection. BTW my cousin, whom I deer hunt with, has a Win Model 70 XTR in 270Win that I would buy on a seconds notice. Never say never!

G'day All, Nope , no Ruger bashing here either! I have owned several, most of which I regret parting with, and only one of which wouldn't shoot. A Ruger 77 Mk11 stainless with the boatpaddle stock, in 222Rem.
Couldn't get that one to shoot at all. Sent it back to the factory, about six weeks later it was back, shooting .80 MOA. seems it had the wrong rate of twist in the barrel for a 222. Since I bought it second hand, and Ruger put a new BBL on it for $35 (including shipping), I'm not going to bitch and moan too loudly!
If you need a reliable working rifle, these merit serious consideration.

Cheers, Dave.
Non Illegitium Carborundum

I have shot a few groups under one HALF inch at 100 yards with my Ruger. It's a 77 mark II stain/lam. in 280. It has shot every load(factory or homemade) 2" or less and with the current load its right at an inche(less when I'm doing it right). I shot two 200 yard groups last weekend and they were right at 1 1/2". Not benchrest accurate but pretty damned good for an out of the box stock(trigger too!) M77 mkII.

These kinds of discussions are interesting to me, because they contain equal parts of manufacturer loyalty, opinion and of cousre raw data.
There is no one thing you can put your finger on when it comes to Ruger or any other manufacturer that can point to their strengths and weaksnesses more than QUALITY. Most of the gun makers have this problem in varing degrees today. I can remember when a Remington rifle, or shotgun, could be ordered sight unseen and you would almost always get a great one. Today is definitely not that day, nor is it for Ruger, or anyone else for that matter.
Ruger has over the years put a lot of emphasis into different areas of manufacturer, while leaving other details to suppliers, ie barrels. Now that they have been making their own barrels for a while, I believe they're making some of the best available right now, along with Savage. Of the last several Rugers I've owned, they've all shot very well indeed, some with some tinkering and some right out of the box. The truth is, more of them need tinkering with the bedding than not.
If you go over to graybeardoutdoors.com you'll find a moderator who claims to have had nearly 300 Remington rifles which were nearly all fantastic shooters, but has yet to find an accurate Savage. That underscores the brand loyalty some people have about such issues. Me, I don't care if it's beautiful, a big established name, or a foreign newcommer, if it's accurate consistently I'll say so, and if it's not, I'll say that too. I don't have any brand loyalty, even though I'm a Ruger fan, of the man and his accomplishments and his ideals, which makes me like the company that bears his name. I shoot Rugers, right now I prefer Savages over them though.
IMHO the guns that have gone through my hands in the last year are considerable, as in years past, I buy in the following order, which changes as I have problems and their manufacturing quaility changes.
1)Tie between Ruger and Savage, I'll take either.
2) CZ, they are a little heavy for deer hunting but shoot really well.
3)Tikkas, nice guns, but I'm not a fan of Berettas sales strategies, and you better not need parts, believe me I've got a few Beretta shotguns.
4)Sako and Winchester, again a tie, they can be accurate, sometimes. Sakos are far too expensive for what you get.
5)Browning, I've had good shooters, but have never been able to cuddle up to these rifles. Just a personal thing, cause I sure can't kick about their accuracy, or handling.
5)All the rest.

That's just my way of seeing it and we all have to make our own decisions. I've always said it's the fellow who doesn't putz about features and reliability and name brand who'll take a cheapie rifle out deer hunting and make the 250 yard shots. He's a guy with a gun he knows and practices with and doesn't pay attention to all of us bellowing on about what's the best. He's that most basic of human kind, the hunter. He could do it with a rock, a bow or a gun. He could do it with a Ruger or a Remington, and not know the difference.

First centerfire rifle I ever owned. Didn't know anything about different brands. I was 21. Bought the M77 right bolt action in 270. Didn't know left handed bolt rifles were even made. (Didn't know of any calibers on earth except for 30.06 and .270 and 22LR). All I had every heard of was a "deer" rifle.

Bought Remington factory 130 CoreLokts. Didn't know anything about barrel break in, bore cleaning, cleaning rods, jags, patches, or anything like it.

Shot a box of 20 rounds in about 5 minutes on a hot day at a dirt mound.

1 day before the deer season opened, I put a scope on it and had it bore sighted. (Guy did a great job by the way). I put 2 bullets on the target at 100 paced yards and they were touching. 1" high, 1" left. Adjusted scope.

Put 4 bullets downrange. 3 touching each other making one hole, the other 1/2" high. I thought all rifles should do this. I thought all bullets should go in the same hole at an easy 100 paces. I had no idea rifles would actually be bad enough to put bullets bigger than a 2" group.

2 months later and into the deer season, while sitting on the toilet reading the back of a hunting magazine, I notice that Ruger now has some new neat looking stainless bolt rifle and in left hand, called a MK II. I call the gun shop and Larry is putting one in .270 on the shelf. It would be my first left handed rifle. I traded in my "tack driver" and paid another $20 bucks for the trade.

Took the new killing machine to the range. Put the same ammo through it. Bullets all over the place. At best 2.5". Something is wrong...terribly wrong. I was "welcomed" to reality. I had just traded a "tack driving" Ruger in for a POS. I never did get that rifle to shoot any better until I started my own loads. It loved Btips but still only about 1" INconsistent groups.

Now it sports a Hart bbl., bedded, accurized. Now I'll race with any Remington accurized rifle in my safe. Trigger is factory and reduces to a crisp 3.5#.

This rifle is going to WY for antelope in a month and a half.

Old Elk Hunter, Keep buying them up if you can find them! But the paper trail will never lead back to GHD!!!
If the only rifles out there to buy were Rugers, I'd shoot pistols or shotguns or muzzleloaders(none of which would have Ruger stamped on the barrel!!! I'm just sorry that the new varmint hunting chambering has that "r" word attached to it!! Would have loved it even more if it was the .204 Hornady or whatever!!! GHD

My entire sporting rifle battery is made up of Ruger M77's or M77/MkII's, with a #1 in .458 Win thrown into the mix. None of them has been bedded or floated or tinkered with in any way other than doing some little polishing of feed lips, chamber throat/ramps and minor things like that I do myself to slick them up.

I've found my Ruger bolt guns and the #1 to be supremely rugged and reliable in every sense. My rifles are working guns, I don't collect safe queens. They get carried and used or I don't keep them around long. I've never had any trouble getting 1" to 1.5" performance out of my Rugers - which is all I personally need in a sporting rifle for my purposes.

The #1 in particular is a very simple and reliable tool and one of the best looking factory rifles ever produced IMHO.

Their RSM M77/MkII is another fine rifle for the money and arguably Ruger's masterpiece.

Those that have had trouble with Rugers I empathize with, but I don't believe they have any higher percentage of flaws than any of the other big name production rifles. Above all else Rugers are brutally strong and rugged. They simply work and that's their purpose. Perhaps they're not as inherently accurate for extreme precision shooting as some of the others, but for my purposes and 90% of hunting situations that's not an issue. If I get 1"-1.5" that's all I need. I don't routinely shoot varmints, so don't require sub-MOA out of a rifle.

1-1.5" is great. Anytime I get one like that and it feeds, it's a keeper. After two in a row that would do no better than 4"@100yds I lost confidence. One of the two I worked with a lot and couldn't get it any better. The other went to the range and after about 40-50 rounds I just shook my head and went home.

I've got a MKII .300mag in the safe I still haven't shot, maybe it'll restore my faith. I keep trying to like this rifle. If it doesn't shoot either, I'm thinking about sending it to ER Shaw and have them turn it into a .257WBY. I've always wanted one and John Barsness say's they've re-tooled over there and are putting out a good product at a decent price. Who knows, a Ruger with a Shaw barrel may be better than a Ruger with a Ruger barrel

Terry

Why keep digging up that old story about Ruger barrels. That happened a long time ago when Ruger used to purchase their barrels and ONE and only onesupplier sold them a bad batch. Ruger no dropped the supplier and even if you were to get one of those old rifles with a bad barrel Ruger will replace it at no cost. Don’t believe me, CALL Ruger and ask for yourself. Ruger barrels are equal or better than barrels from RemSavWin companies. Lawdog