I'm thinking about buying a new Ruger 77 MKII in 6.5x55 and was wondering what you all thought of this rifle and cartridge. I had a 7x57 Ruger that had a super long throat and did not shoot so well. I have several standard caliber Ruger 77s and they all have normal throats and shoot amazingly well, but I'm afraid the 6.5x55 will be like the 7x57.
I'd be interested in opinions of anyone who has this rifle.
Thanks

If your worried about the throat you could get it in 260 instead. Or buy the sweed and the troat is to long, take it to a gun smith he can set the barrel back for around a $100.

I can't comment on the throat issue. A good friend had this same rifle and caliber and loved it. Is very sorry he turned around and sold it. For what it's worth.

I wanted it in .260, but was offered a super deal on a 6.5x55, so I'm considering it.

I'd take it. You can seat the bullets out a bit, can't you?

Had one once. It was one of the most inaccurate rifles I ever owned. Someone else has it now.

[ 12-03-2003, 05:12: Message edited by: South40 ]

Mine shoots tiny groups with 120 gr. Ballistic Tips seated at 3.00 over 49 grains of RL-19 at 3,000 fps.

If you are a handloader, and set your bullets out, the two I have owned were very accurate. The 6.5 x 55 is the most accurate military cartridge ever fielded. Even over the 308.

The case for the 6.5 x 55 was also the strongest one made, so brass to specs are going to be strong accordingly.

I use Remington Corelokts in 140 grains. The bullet has two cannelures on it, one for the Swedes and the other for the 260, 264 Mag, 6.5 Rem Mag etc. This bullet has proven very accurate.

I own several 260s.; and will never trade them off at all. I love the cartridge, or should I say the bore size. If you handload tho, the Swede is much more versatile, and can be loaded to higher velocity if that is your bag. Load data for the 260 is pretty interchangable with the Swedes load data, ( except at max, and the old work up... yadayadayaha).

I love the 6.5 Swede based on tradition. It is older than the 30/30 is. If you ever read about the use they say in the Russo Finnish war of 1939 and 1940, snipers using the Swedes sure made the bodies of a lot of Russian soldiers eternal residents of Finland.

I don;t think you will regret getting one. And anyone who said that theirs did not shoot well, evidently used factory ammo which is not loaded for a long throat, just like the 7 x 57.

Or the particular rifle they owned had a junk barrel.

I cannot give details on the 6.5x55mm, but when Bobby talked about long throats on the 7x57mm in the Mark II, unless you have owned one there is no way to describe how long a throat the chamber actually has. I used to own a 7x57mm Mauser in Ruger 77 Mark II and the throat was so long that I could get a 139 grain boattail bullet no where near the lands and still have enough bullet shank left over to fit into the case mouth more than .1 inch. Sure, the boattail would slip in there, but the shank portion that makes contact with the case neck simply was not long enough. The same was true with the 154 grain and the 162 grain bullets. Even the 175 grain bullets were too short. With the Mark II, you have to find the sweet spot somewhere out there between the canlures and where ever so the bullet still stays put in the case. It is not just a matter of seating the bullet out a little further. I now own a CZ 550 American in 7x57mm Mauser and it too, has one of those long, long throats. I found that with the 1x8.66 twist barrel, the Hornady SSTs in 162 grain is long enough to be seated .01 inch off the lands and still have enough length in the bullet shank to seat in the case mouth and stay in one place, but the round is 3.297 inches long (it still fits well into the magazine), however, it is accurate as heck, giving me sub half minute of angle at 100 yards in three-shot groups with an average speed of 2,855 fps. I did not try it in the Ruger, but the 160 grain Nosler Partition also is long enough to get within .01 inch from the lands because of the flat base. It delivers right at .75 inch three-shot groups going 2,815 fps with a slightly reduced load of H414 powder. So remember, when someone posts about a Ruger or even a CZ with a long throat in the Euro cartridges, it is not just a matter of seating the bullet a little further out, it is a matter of seating it way, way out and sometimes right out of the case! This does nothing to answer Bobby's question, and I am sorry about that, but I just wanted to put my two cents worth in about long throats in the Rugers. Thanks ... Tom Purdom

I have owned two different Ruger 77MkII's in 6.5x55 and both have had throats that were incredibly long. I was not able to seat bullets out near the rifling in either one. The first refused to shoot anything well, but the second is very accurate with any bullet from the Hornady 129 and heavier. The chamber dimensions on the two rifles are almost identical. I have no idea why one shoots so much better.

I know exactly why Doug. The one that shoots well is a good Ruger Model 77 Mark II, and the one that does not, well, it isn't. Seriously, though, the Mark II that I owned in 7x57 had that long, long throat, but after tinkering and judicious handloading and load testing, it became a .75 inch three shot group rifle, then one day, for no apparent reason, it became a 3-inch grouping rifle. It wasn't the scope, the rings were solid, the powder was the same brand and type I had been using when the thing shot well, the brass was the same and the bullets were the same make, the seating depth was kept the same, virtually everything was the same, yet, the thing began printing patterns. Go figure. Tom Purdom

I've got a Mark II in 7x57, and it seems to shoot a wide variety of (factory) loads very well- 1"-11/2" groups (3 shot). I think it just goes to show that each rifle is an individual.