Have an opportunity for a NIB lefty M77 walnut stock in 300WinMag for $630. I've only owned 10-22, #1, Mini-30, and Deerfield Carbine from Ruger.

Generalyl speaking how are the post Bill Ruger M77's? Do they come bedded? Do you normally need to get the action/bolt trued?

Thanks.

It will depend on the year manuf. Some early ones had really poor barrels. I built my 338-06 on one & had it bedded. It's a very good shooter. I did not have anything done to the action. Only shooting will tell for sure.

I'm looking at 2009 manufacture.

I've had a few m77's over the years. all worked well enough but as the years go by they seem to get better and better. My latest two are a .223 compact mk 2 that shoots under MOA after a little tweeking and my latest is a mk 2 .300 win mag that I got a good deal on because the store was making room for the Hawkeyes that were just coming out then about two years ago.

At the time I wanted a mod 70 and felt like I was settleing on the Ruger but after the first trip to the range I coulden't have been happier. I got 1/2 inch right out of the box with nothing special ammo. I've never had a rifle do that before.

I should have asked, how does a 2009 M77 compare to a 2009 Rem CDL? Talking accuracy wise.

No none of them are bedded. As far as accuracy, you take your chances. Most can be made to shoot with some tweeking, but would not bet money as to which one will shoot better out of the box. Because of the round actions of the Remngtons, they have a design advantage for possible accuracy.
I have both, and like them both.

quote:

Originally posted by DWright:
No none of them are bedded. As far as accuracy, you take your chances. Most can be made to shoot with some tweeking

+1. If you have issues, check the bedding. My 77RSI in 308 had poor accuracy. I had it glass bedded for $150(full length stock) and $60 trigger job. The gunsmith said Ruger did a terrible job on the bedding. It's now my most accurate rifle. It regularly shoots .5". I have a Hawkeye 338 Federal, it shoots about 1 MOA out of the box.

I make a paractice of bedding most of my rifles I find a good bedding job does more to help them most anything. The only ones that I haven't bedded are the ones that shoot great out of the box. Have a few like that but most do better with a bedding job.

Three out of three of the most resent manufactured mod 77s that I am familure with are better than MOA. That includes .223,.22-250 and .243. All are in the varmint model. roger

Other than Tikka's, I personally believe the current Ruger 77's whatever model, are one of the best values for the dollar spent. Mnt. and ring system rock solid, and recently purchased two RSI's, 308 and '06, and both give moa accuracy w/ factory loads and a bit better w/ handloads. The new trigger is an improvement and fine for a hunting rifle. As for Remington 700's, turn them into match rilfes w/ different triggers, barrels and stocks, but fine action for that purpose. However, it is probably the most sold sporting rifle on the market today as far as bolt guns go. Both work.

quote:

Originally posted by BISCUT:
I'm looking at 2009 manufacture.

You will have no problem and the new LC6 trigger is really great.

I agree with Ahab, if made in 2009 it would be a Hawkeye, the LC6 trigger while not a 2 1/2- 3lb trigger is a vast improvement over the old lawyer triggers, mine breaks at 4 1/4 lb, clean and crisp. The barrels are just as good as any other production rifle barrel. I personally prefer the Ruger over the Remingtons. Just too many issues with Remington quality control over the past few years to go along with a couple bad customer service experiences with Remington has dictated that my money will go elsewhere.

Like already stated here, they are a reliable company, offer excellent value for money and have an excellent customer service, in case you ever need it.

Their scope mounts are also great value for the money, I very much like their simplistic but efficient approach on engineering.

I would go w/ the Ruger right now. I bought a Remington 5R a couple months ago and it was a terrible piece of crap. I figured for a grand it would shoot OK but I was mistaken. Best I can wring out of it is 2.5 in at 85 yds. I spent a fortune in components before trading it in and taking the loss. Sent it back to Remington and they said it was fine. I also saw a recently built Remington Custom Shop ABG in .416 Rem that had horrific inletting. Also the comb was so high on the stock I don't care who you are the sights were useless. That rifle was near $2000. My local gun dealer told me he ordered 2 40X's last year and sent both back due to quality issues. I don't hate Remington and own several. One of the most accurate rifles I have ever seen is an ADL my brother-in-law bought 6 years ago. It is literally a .5-.6 rifle w/ any thing you put down the barrel. But I do believe their quality is in question right now.

I have the impression that Ruger is run not by bean counters and consultants but by engineers and by the family who owns it. That makes them for me even more preferrable.

Just my MHO.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DUK:
I have the impression that Ruger is run not by bean counters and consultants but by engineers and by the family who owns it. That makes them for me even more preferrable.

Just my MHO.[/QUOTE/]

I read somewhere a few years back that they have no Debt,so they can concentrate on quality and inovation.

quote:

Originally posted by Malloy805:
I read somewhere a few years back that they have no Debt, so they can concentrate on quality and innovation.

My interpretation of this statement is that they don't have have creditors telling them how they have to run their company.

This policy seems to go against everything which consultants, investment bankers, high achieving young MBA and overpaid CEO consider approporiate to successfully run a business.

It might however explain why Ruger is still well and healthy while many of their former competitors have gone belly up.

Seems like a good reason to buy another one of their fine rifles...

In my opinion, there are better choices than a M77. I don't own one myself, but if I were buying a gun in that price range, I would look seriously at a Tikka. Everyone I know that owns them loves them and hasn't had to spend extra money to get them to shoot.

My Rugers are old M77's but both shoot well and have lasted 30+ years of regular use - the 30-06 having been carried by nephews, sons, freinds, and others much less gentle than anyone would recommend.

For quality and logevity in my limited sample they are hard to beat.

My old M77 has the tang safety and is very accurate and I've never had a problem with it.My new Hawkeye is ultra accurate but to new to say about reliability.IMO they're as good as anything else out there.

I have an old M77 tang safety .30-06 also. Shoots 3/4 MOA with most loads. Ruger sometimes is slow to produce the fad of the year gun, but once they do, it is a totally reliable piece. Took them a long time to build an accurate Mini-14, but they do now.

One big plus in their favor is that they aren't owned by an faceless private equity group (Cerberus?) like Remington.

Like everyone else says, a fantastic deal for the money.

I've heard it said the new Ruger M-77 is the pre 1964 model 70 of our day.IMO you can not buy a better hunting rifle than a Ruger M-77.The scope mounting system is excellent.What other rifle have scope rings that come with it.I just bought a hawkeye light weight in .257 Roberts and it's better gun than my Kimber .260 and weighs the same.

I have a brand new .257 Bob Hawkeye. It's real nice, almost as nice as my Savage Classic.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
I have a brand new .257 Bob Hawkeye. It's real nice, almost as nice as my Savage Classic.

quote:

I just bought a hawkeye light weight in .257 Roberts and it's better gun than my Kimber .260 and weighs the same.

I recently bought a BOB. Seems like the "Bob" is making a comeback.

I had a tang safety M77 in .270 that I tinkered with a lot and never got it with any load to shoot better than 1.5" groups.

Our family recently bought 2 CDL's in a 300 Win Mag and a .243. Both are shooting .7-1.0 groups.

However it seems like the trend at Remington is downward at an accelerating rate and at Ruger the quality seems to be increasing at the same rate of speed. I think I would trust Ruger more than Remington now as I believe that the crossover in quality occurred about 2-3 years ago. Go head on with your M77.

ruger 77 is a real workhorse and cheap too, maybe not a bench rest rifle, but who needs a BR rifle for hunting?.
cheers
yes