Winchester pre64 Model 70 Featherweight vs. early Ruger Model 77 Tang Safety

What are people's thoughts on this comparison? I would like to get a light weight rifle (read lighter than M70 pre64 Std.) and have been thinking about one of the two models listed. I have a pre64 M70 Standard in .30-06 and would like to get a lighter companion for it. I would be interested in how the two stack up in terms of: Weight, handling, etc.

I'm aware of some of the design differences between the two but have not had the opportunity to handle both of them side by side.

Thanks in advance,
Bob

Bob,

The standard grade pre 64 70's were too long and heavy in standard calibers. The Featherweight was a real breakthru. They still did not come with any rubber pad and most had a steel buttplate although plastic may be almost as bad.

I much prefer the M 70 otherwise for it's far superior safety, crf, trigger and I don't like Rugers front bedding or bolt handle either.

Early Ruger barrels were spotty also.

The best deal out there is a pre 64 Featherweight with a pad on it to the LOP that you like. Of course the standard weights are fine in specialty calibers or even for a varmint rifle. Some of those old 270's will really shoot and could be used for pests.

A model 70 will always be worth something, even in tough shape. A beat M77 is a $200 gun tops!

Having said that, I do like the early 77's. They are tough, dependable, and affordable. I don't "see" a weight savings in the standard 77, so look for an ultralight in .30 calibre, or some such combination.

The very early Ruger flatbolts do bring a little more than later versions . The flatbolts also have a real nice fit and finsh......I dare say better than many pre-64 s I have looked at . I think the weight would be very close to that of a featherweight ; the Ruger would have a slightly beefier barrel , while the action on Ruger is around 6 or 8 ounces lighter than the Winchester.

I don't think you'll find any weight advantage with the tang safety '77s, except for the barrel being two inches shorter. The stocks were rather bulky, and while there were two different contours of barrels (at least in the magnum calibers) neither was particularly light. Trigger not very good either.

The pre-64 Featherweights featured a much lighter barrel contour than the standard pre-64's and an alloy FP&TG. They still had the same bulky stock and the same 48 oz. long action. Their triggers do hone out very nicely, and their balance point was close to being muzzle light. Their safetys leave nothing to be desired. They have the same some gas control short comings of all the other pre-64 actions. Those that are still available go for a premium price. The modern ones are better made, thanks to CNC machinery. Their current FWT stock, however has a very flexable forend that makes maintaining zero or use of a shooting sling a problem.
The early tang safety Rugers had a timmmer stock, a lighter 42 oz. action, and a heavier barrel contour. All of which adds up to a little better balanced rifle. They have a very effective gas conrol system, and fully adjustable trigger that works very well. Unlike the Remington trigger designs, it is an open design and not prone to accumulating things that incline them accidental discharges. Their safetys are two position which, while locking the bolt, don't lock the firing pin.
Later tang safety Rugers did have chubbier stocks.
Their angled front guard screw works very well. The only wood stocked rifles that can't benefit from pillar bedding because it isn't needed. Their bolts and recievers were made with investment castings which were also used by Sako to make their bolts. There are no disadvantages to using investment cast bolts or recievers. E

I believe the pre 64 Win. in std. wt. and the Fwt. were the best production rifles in American history..

I still shoot them and much prefer them to the new M-70s..plus they don't devalue like a new production gun..

I personally prefer the std. wt. guns as they hold better after a chase and they shoot better off hand...If I want to save a couple of pounds I'll do it someplace else, like my waist....I'm crowding 70 years old and a 10 lb. gun doesn't bother me to pack all day....Sometimes I wonder what the new generation is made of? perhaps marshmellows

Ray, I totally agree with you. I prefer standard rifles verses the ultra weights for exactly the reason's you stated. They handle and shoot well, and I like the feel better than the ultra weights, which usually also have a shorter barrel.

Years ago I traded a pre-64 Mod. 70 Fwt. for the first M77 that came into Pampa, TX. They were both .243 Win. and the Ruger was one of the good ones that would actually group.
One of the worst mistakes I ever made. I never could get my Mod.70 back, but finally redeemed myself by trading the Ruger for a Sako L57 H.B. in .243 Win.

Just the way I did things,,,,

i've never been a M70 fan, so can't give any info. Not bashing, just don't like them.

You don't say what you want to do with your rifle. That could be a big factor.

I will say that with the Rugers, it can depend on the individual gun, but that's true of any model. There seems to be a lot of crap spread about Rugers that is passed on by people who have never owned or shot one. The very first No. 1's and 77's weren't too accurate, but the later ones improved tremendously. Some of the older No. 1's had some of the best triggers I ever saw on a production rifle. I have two 77's now. One is a new one which is OK. The other is a late model Mk1 which is the one gun out of 60 that I won't ever sell. It's my go anywhere, hunt anything ace in the hole. Its a tang safety, 338 WM, magnaported with a bedded kevlar stock. It will shoot 3/8" groups all day with Federal factories with Nosler Partitions.

One thing that isn't mentioned much anymore is the popularity of the tang safety with double guys. I don't own any kind of shotgun except doubles or O/U and the Ruger feels more familiar than any other bolt gun. If I hunted with a heavy double rifle, the tang safety would be a natural to switch off with. In my mind the M70 three position type is the most different.

I have a pre-64 featherweight in 264 win mag and an old model tang safety ruger in 30-06.
I like the ruger better because:
1. fits me better -- better balance
2. like the tang safety
3. holds five down
4. sights are better (only the front sight)
5. looks better to me

The m-70 does seem lighter, though if that is what you are looking for.

Thanks for all the responses. They have all been helpful. There are a couple things in particular that I wanted to address...

quote:

---

If I want to save a couple of pounds I'll do it someplace else, like my waist....

---

Ray,

Boy oh boy was I glad to hear someone say that! I haven't had the hunting experience that most people on this site have, but your quote basically summed up my thinking from the "outside looking in". I know you have to take everything on the net with a grain of salt, but when you hear people who seem to have some experience talk about the advantages of a light weight rifle for hunting in the mountains I begin to think there might be something to it. Thanks for at least starting to clear this up a little bit...

quote:

---

You don't say what you want to do with your rifle. That could be a big factor.

---

Art,

Basically my thinking was that I would like a rifle that would be more convenient if I got into terrain where any more weight than necessary would be a hinderance. Whether that be steeps, a long day afoot, etc. I haven't ruled this thinking out, but like I said above Ray's statement indicates to me that this may not be as big a factor as I once thought it was.

Thanks to all,
Bob

When I started hunting in the late '60s and early '70s like most people I knew, I didn't have much money and bought Ruger's because they were cheaper than Rem 700's & Win Pre64's - and the Olin Post'64's looked terrible to me. My grandad did find me a SAKO 308 that I sold during a job layoff but I had several cal's in 77's...some would shoot ok some would not but they all shared an accurizing trick. If you floated the barrel and snugged up real tight on the rear action screw, you could adjust the tension on the angled front screw from just barely tight to almost loose and really open or close the group sizes. I tried this couple years ago when I picked up an old "red reciever" 77 in 270 that would only shoot 3 1/2" to 4" groups when I bought it, and my gunsmith advised me not to put any money in it since the red receiver guns had a bad reputation for never being able to be made to shoot exceptionally well. So I went back to my "trick" from the old days and I liked to have broken my wrist finally using a pipe wrench for leverage and a milled down tire tool sized screwdriver!!! getting the front screw to break loose and back out but after settling on a 3/4 turn out from full tight, and opening the barrel channel a scootch where it had a shiny spot under the front of the barrel, the gun would shoot an acceptable 1 1/4" to 1 1/2" for normal 100-200 yard Texas hunting distances with some 20+ year old 1975 vintage ammo that came with the gun, and a little better than that with some fresh Fed Prem. And yes I paid about $200-$225 for it in the off season. A buddies 13 year old grandson now thinks it is fantastic and puts it to good use.
Ron

One of the things that one should be aware of in both rifles is the proper torgue on the middle action screw. Just enough to be snug. Finger tight. Any tighter and the rifle's action will distort and accuracy will go out the wiindow. E

I wouldn't get too excited if I had to pick either one. I like them both. The Rugers I've owned have had spotty accuracy, but I really think they are getting pretty good right now. My latest new MKII is a .243 and it shoots absolutely unbelievable. I also have a tang safety 30-06 that will consistently shoot under an inch. So I like them. I also like the Featherweight, although I haven't had a chance to shoot my latest one, a 7mm-08. It's a beautiful gun with a tight chamber, and I have high hopes for it. I'm not a fan of the Winchester trigger, but it's not bad, I've seen much worse, and it can be fixed a number of ways.

Some of the early tang-safety Rugers where and are very accurate, nicely-finished, reliable and solid, and such specimens are really good values. The sad part is, many of them won't shoot into a group the size of a coffee can, usually because of bum barrels. These Rugers are a fifty-fifty proposition, and I bought my first one back in 1977.

There is no comparison between the Ruger and the pre-64 Model 70 Featherweight whatsoever. The Model 70 action, built of all milled-steel construction, is far superior to the investment-cast Ruger action, the cut-rifled barrels are very consistent, and I've never seen a Featherweight or standard-grade Model 70 that couldn't be made to shoot very well with some minor tweeking plus the right loads.

This is telling: Many of the best custom rifles in the world, made by some of the world's best custom riflemakers, are built on the Model 70 Winchester action. I have never heard of a best-quality rifle being built on the Ruger 77 action. If the Ruger action was as good, discerning clients would specify it's use, and these top gunmakers would enthusiastically employ it. They don't and won't....

AD

The Winchester 70 Classic's metalurgy is not superior to the Rugers investment cast construction. This has been debated here before to almost everyones satisfaction. They are both good.

The Winchester M 70 is great art. The Ruger 77 is not to my eye. Besides the name Winchester is origin of the pride and history of the American repeater.

The Remington 7XX series started out as a cheap to make and make right economy rifle and it evolved into the 700 which had better looks and now it has degenerated into a poorly made orphan that is saddled with a lawsuits and arms length ownership. Remington does not even make the 700 anymore but farms it out. It's design has been matched by other containment designs and now even the design of the new MRC may give us safety and function. Something that the Remington never did.

The pre 64 Mod 70 is CRF, and the Ruger is a pushfeed! Case closed!

That's just silly.

Well , I bought my first Ruger 77 back in 1971....an already slightly used "flatbolt" in 7mm mag. I still have that rifle and it is the last one I would give up . The fit and and finish are excellent and it has been 100 % reliable of feed , function , and zero for 33 years . I sort of think Ruger took some pains the first few years of production as the quality to my notion had already slipped some by the late seventies.......my example has a lively feeling stock with a slender forend that is nicely tapered up to the barrel channel , not at all like the clubbier later versions . It even has some nice figure in the buttstock . I also wonder if Ruger used the cheap barrels at first.....I have never seen a flatbolt that wouldn't shoot well........if memory serves me right , Ruger introduced the 77 in 1968......being a push feed or not is sort of a moot point in my view in these small non-dangerous game calibers......but I think Ruger has a pretty good record for putting out relible weapons in those days ..........

[ 10-21-2003, 05:09: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]