Gentlemen, I have noticed that a lot of folks are really down on Ruger rifles. What is the reasoning behind this?

Depends on what website you're on. On some sites Ruger can do no wrong and Ruger never made a bad rifle. It's the Internet and a lot of parroting goes on these sites, good & bad. Take what you read with a grain of salt.

Terry

I have a few Ruger rifle and some have been good, some bad and one bad enough that it had to go back to be made right. Currently, My Ruger M77 .35 Whelen has an apparent headspace probmlem and is scheduled to visit my gunsmith to have this checked out.I do not enjoy case head separations when shooting brand new factory ammo. I'll get my gismith to confirm my thoughts about the headspace and them with a copy of his written report, it'll go back to Ruger for repair.
Paul B.

Perhaps one of the members who is down on Rugers, in general, will explain his reasons.

I can only speak for myself, and it would be hypocritical to say I'm down on Rugers, since I have several that I'm happy with. I've had several that seemed hopeless too, and I got rid of them. I can't say for sure how that compares with other brands, generalizing, since I don't have experience with several of the other choices.

However Rugers do not compare very favorably with my experience with CZ 550 medium action rifles. Out of the several I have owned, 550 mediums and one 527, all have been accurate. I still have seven at last count. All the CZs that I've shot, belonging to others, have been good too.

How's that for avoiding the ghostbuster cliche grain of salt, which IMO isn't worth anything as advice. All one has to do is read and see if the poster has any real experience on the topic, and covers both sides of the issue, objectively.

Remember - a critic and a cynic are not the same thing.

KB

Shot two that are newly in the family, a 7x57, and a 7mm Mag, both tang safety 77's with the red butt pads and no modifications; each shot three into 1-1/2 inches using my eyes and shooting ability, which are no great shakes.

The 7x57 has an older Leupold 2-7, and the magnum a 3-9 of same manufacture and vintage.

I'd say these two, at least, are quite accurate, and would be proven further so by someone better at it than I am.

I have avoided 77's thus far due to hearsay as to their accuracy, you couldn't prove it by these two rifles.

The problem I have is which to use out west this fall; my shoulder told me to favor the 7x57

FWIW when I'm in Montana, locally I see Rugers often as not as any other rifle.

I have had a number of Rugers. In fact, I just picked up a new one within the last month. Never had a problem with any of them except for a RSM. The receiver wasn't true and we couldn't get a scope mounted on it. Sent it back to Ruger and they sent me a new one. I think they are great rifles.

I liked the classic stock on the MK IIs better than the slimmer stock on the current Hawkeye.

I have had trouble with a number of Winchesters and that is why I prefer the Ruger to the Winchester but I bet the South Carolina Winchesters are much improved.

I had a Ruger M77 270 in the early 70s that wouldn't shoot better than 2.5" MOA. Took it to a good gunsmith in Kalispell too. Sold it. Had great luck with Rem 700s during that period. I'm sure Rugers have gotten much better since then or maybe I just got a lemon. Just bought a new Rem 700 and had to spend $300 at a gunsmith to get it right. Things change ...

I think the problem with Ruger rifles is that they have not kept pace with the increasing accuracy of factory rifles. My Ruger Ultralight in 257R is NOT accurate ie. the best tailored loads are in the 1 1/2 - 2" range at 100 yards and this is after 100's of rounds of testing. My folder of targets is about 1" thick! All my other rifles have been MUCH easier to get to shoot to my satisfaction. It is a nice rifle, the wood is nice, it handles well etc. The Ruger Mini 14 is another rifles that is handy etc. but notoriously inaccurate, especially given the inherent accuracy of the 223 round. My Ruger #1 in 45/70 is also OK, but that's all.
So, Ruger rifles are so so for me. Ruger revolvers on the other hand are some of the best handguns out there and I own several.
Peter.

i dunno but i've probably got 6 or 8 in the rack now and have downed probably 20 or so. the only problems i've had was the accuracy of mini 14's. one of my last customs i built was on a 77 action that i trued up, and it took as little work to true it as about any other

I owned three of them.....my complaints were:
1. Failure to feed anywhere reasonably acceptable
2. Unacceptable accuracy and poor warranty
3. Stock warpage so severe that I would have had to remove over 1/8" on one side of the forend to correct it to re-float the barrel.

No more for me!

quote:

Depends on what website you're on. On some sites Ruger can do no wrong and Ruger never made a bad rifle. It's the Internet and a lot of parroting goes on these sites, good & bad. Take what you read with a grain of salt.

That is the most accuratre statement I have seen on the whole "Who Makes The Best Factory Rifles" issue.

Since the early 70's, I have owned 6 Ruger's, 4 Model 77's and 2 Number 1's.

The Number 1's, I just could not get used to not having a quick follow up shot, so I sold them.

Of the 4 77's I still have two that get used a lot, a 257 Robert's Ultra Lite that my wife has been using for about 15 years with no complaints and my tang safety 77 in 35 Whelen.

No headspacing issues, no nothing, the only one of my Ruger's I have ever had any work done to was having the 22 inch piece of stove pipe that came on the Whelen switched out with a 26 inch medium sporter weight barrel.

Depending on the website and the participants, you will see the same kind of gripes against 700 Remingtons, Model 70 Winchester's, the various CZ models, Mark V Weatherby's add infinitum.

It boils down to what each individual hunter/shooter is expecting from their rifle.

For many of these folks, instead of buying factory made rifles and spending basically the same amount of money, they should just back their ears and have a custom rifle built to their specifacations.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Depends on what website you're on. On some sites Ruger can do no wrong and Ruger never made a bad rifle. It's the Internet and a lot of parroting goes on these sites, good & bad. Take what you read with a grain of salt.

That is the most accuratre statement I have seen on the whole "Who Makes The Best Factory Rifles" issue.

Depending on the website and the participants, you will see the same kind of gripes against 700 Remingtons, Model 70 Winchester's, the various CZ models, Mark V Weatherby's add infinitum.

It boils down to what each individual hunter/shooter is expecting from their rifle.

For many of these folks, instead of buying factory made rifles and spending basically the same amount of money, they should just back their ears and have a custom rifle built to their specifacations.

Seems to me like the "grain of salt" and a question like "who makes the best factory rifle?" doesn't mean a whole lot. I think parroting is best done and recognized by those best at it. Let's hope that doesn't catch on here or we'll miss the good ole days when difference of opinion was the normal.

What's wrong with Ruger rifles is a little more specific.

Specifically - regarding the bolt action Rugers - I can't predict probablility at higher than 75% or so of a given rifle being accurate. The ratio ain't that good out-of-the-box or tweeked. Bad accuracy is so common, that it can't be considered an anomoly.

What do most folks expect from their rifles? I suggest first and formost it's function, then a close second is accuracy. What could be more clear and specific than that?

For the money - a custom rifle? I noticed the use of plural vs singular in your post on this topic. Perhaps it would be better to have one custom rifle than several factory rifles.

Test enough rifles, and a person can see a pattern develop. My opinion about Rugers comes from such a pattern, and likewise for the CZ. I mean, it's hard to not recognize a pattern, if the results are 100%, as with the CZ 550, on function and accuracy. If the Ruger bolt actions had demonstrated the same pattern, I would have said so. It's that simple. Although opinion and pattern aren't facts, it's facts that help form them.



KB

I bet all manufacturers produce lemons. I have 2 Rugers that I like a lot. I've owned several others over the years. I also have a Kimber that was a lemon but now is a great rifle (went back to the factory and they replaced the barrel).

I own 2 CZ 550 FS rifles, one in 6.5x55 and the other in 9.3x62. From my view, the CZ is better than the Rugers which kills me to say since I've grown up on Rugers. Now a CZ American will generally sell for about $150 more than a standard Hawkeye. I'd rather see Ruger charge more and finish out their product a little better. Better bedding, a better trigger and polish the action so it's not so rough.

I've heard people are having problems with the newer Remingtions since the Freedom Group bought them and started cutting expenses.

I've heard good things about the newer Winchesters.

Kabluewy, your experiences are yours, mine are mine.

I haved not had any problems function wise or accuracy wise from any of the Rugers I have owned.

Maybe all I ever got ahold of were just good ones, I don't know.

Unless you are intimating that I am lying about my experiences with Ruger rifles, then my opinion on how good I think they are, is just as valid as yours is on how sorry they are.

Calling me to task simply because I stated that I have seen these same type statements made about nearly ever factory produced rifle for the 40+ years I have been hunting and shooting, and just do not agree with your estimation of Rugers is your perogative, but it is not going to change my opinion.

CHC,
Apparantly this is an example of how easy it is to have a misunderstanding. I'm neither calling you a lier, or arguing with you about your experience.

It may be intrepreted that I'm calling you to task - so to speak - for generalizations, which are apparantly intended to dismiss the experiences of others related herein. Just as the "with a grain of salt" was intended to do.

You can say whatever you want, but when it reads like you are saying my experiences and opinion on the issue doesn't matter to you, and thus doesn't count, I might just mention it, in a nice way of course.

BTW, I don't recall mentioning that Rugers are "sorry". I did say that I've had some that seemed hopelessly inaccurate to me, so I got rid of them. I have other - keepers - which are accurate.

Best regards,
KB

I don't know of the Rugers of lately, but I've personally seen some bad ones of years ago. One was a brand new heavy barrel 308. Had a T16 Weaver on it and shot a good bunch of various match ammo and match bullet ammo. The best it would do was 1 inch.....at 50 yards? Clean the bore well and miked it and found the groove diameter was .3095. Sent it back to Ruger and they sent it back three weeks later with a note saying it was within factory tolerances.

Another was a 25-06 Ruger. Same thing, groove on it turned out to be .259. Seen one heavy barrel Ruger 22 Hornet that had a chamber that wasn't concentric with the bore, bolt was bearing on only one lug, and the receiver face wasn't square. That one got rebarreled and it shot fantastic.

Now on a positive note a best friend had a Ruger in 220 Swift. This too was an older Ruger. Now that rifle would cut holes all day long.

I hard Ruger had barrel problems years ago. I hope that they got them sorted out nowadays. Other then the accuracy problems I think the Ruger rifles look just great. I'm not crazy about the angle bedding screw idea though.

Well I just picked up a new African in 375 Ruger. Love it except for the fact that it won't feed factory Hornady and it is gouging the s**t out of the brass. I was going to send it to John Farner for some bedding and an extra crossbolt before I discovered this. I judiciously polished the ramp, and undersurface of the rails by hand with 600 paper being super careful to not change the geometry-wanted to see if it helped the brass scoring. Nothing and I don't think it is just one component either, rather the entire mag box, rail, follower geometry looks iffy.
I don't know whether to send to John or back to Ruger. Will they fix this now that it isn't 100% original even though it was a mess to start with? I really want to like this rifle as it is so trim and quick...

quote:

I just picked up a new African in 375 Ruger. Love it except for the fact that it won't feed factory Hornady and it is gouging the s**t out of the brass.

Thank you.....you just reminded me to continue to not buy Ruger long guns!

quote:

Originally posted by vagrouser:
I don't know whether to send to John or back to Ruger. Will they fix this now that it isn't 100% original even though it was a mess to start with? I really want to like this rifle as it is so trim and quick...

That seems to summarize a really common dilemma with Ruger ownership. And unfortunately it's an easy prediciment to get into. It's a paradox. Ya generally gotta tweek with them to get um right, but once that's done, Ruger basically says it's your baby now. If it had been right to start with, messing with it wouldn't have been necessary.

Good luck.

KB

I find it all subjective. I've got a Ruger #1 45/70 SS that just seems to shoot anything. Even 300gr Midway blems are 5 shot sub moa time n time again. TSX, Partition,405 Rem bulk, beartooth, she eatsm em all.

My mini 30 SS will do a 3 shot moa, not a 5 shot....

and my 44mag Deerfield carbine -- hits the side of a barn n that be about it. Its a 50yard n in rifle.

I'm a big rifle guy...With exception og the #1 I wwouldn't seek Ruger in anyhting. Just me.

I have an old tang safety 220 Swift that is the most accurate rifle I have ever owned.

On the other hand I have had experience with Ruger 25/06, 270, 280 and 300 Win Mag that were completely unacceptible.

If you get a good one keep it but the bad ones just get rid of it or better yet not buy Ruger in the first place.
Regards, Keith

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
CHC,
Apparantly this is an example of how easy it is to have a misunderstanding. I'm neither calling you a lier, or arguing with you about your experience.

It may be intrepreted that I'm calling you to task - so to speak - for


generalizations, which are apparantly intended to dismiss the experiences of others related herein. Just as the "with a grain of salt" was intended to do.

You can say whatever you want, but when it reads like you are saying my experiences and opinion on the issue doesn't matter to you, and thus doesn't count, I might just mention it, in a nice way of course.

BTW, I don't recall mentioning that Rugers are "sorry". I did say that I've had some that seemed hopelessly inaccurate to me, so I got rid of them. I have other - keepers - which are accurate.

Best regards,

KB

You sound paranoid. The grain of salt remark wasn't aimed at you personally.

Here is a very good example of what I was talking about. On AR there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of love for them. On 24hr campfire most people think Ruger hung the moon.

EXAMPLE

Terry

I don't like Rugers because of the way they finish off the castings, rounding off the flats, wavy flats etc.

My dislike doesn't go much beyond that but it's the factor that keeps me from ever asking the gun counter guy to pull a ruger down for me.

That said, if this new 1911 they are putting out looks nice and crisply finished and develops a good rep for reliability I'll probably buy one, just to have a Ruger in the stable.

Kabluewy, you made a good point.

I felt that you were questioning my experiences, so I responded in kind.

I respect the fact that everyone has their own opinions on all subjects, as far as ruger rifles are concerned, our opinions differ.

I still maintain however that I have seen the same type attitude toward other factory built rifles.

My remark about people buying a custom rifle stems from the discussions where folks have spent enough $$$ to have had a custom rifle built, while trying to get a less than perfect off the shelf factory rifle to perform at the level they are expecting.

Maybe I have been lucky or am just not as picky, but I have never owned a rifle of any make that did not perform to my expectations.

I can tell you my reasoning.

Plain and simple, I do not have confidence in them.

Friend of mine owns a tang Ruger Varmint in 22-250. Shoots absolutley lights out.

So I think Rugers are great. I find the exact same rifle in 243 and in very good shape.

It absolutely would not shoot. I don't know how mmany reloading supplies I sent down range.
Traded it off.

Brother in law brings his Ruger 30-06 deer hunting. Goes to rifle range to check zero. Will not shoot. Took it the gunsmith to get fixed. This was 20 years ago and cannot remember the exact problem.

Owned Ruger Number 1 International. Horrible trigger. Shot OK. But I wounded and lost deer a deer with that rife. I have only wounded and lost two deer. That one was my 2nd.

Owned a Ruger 44 mag deer carbine. That thing was lucky to shoot a 10 inch group at 100 yards.

Nephew wanted a 30-06 for his graduation present. He chose a Ruger, tried to talk him out of it, but he stuck to his guns. Shoots OK, I would say a solid 2 MOA rifle with factory ammo. Had to tweek it to get it to that level.

Now for the positive. I own a 10/22 that has over ten thousand rounds through it and still going strong.

I have 1/2 dozen Remingtons and a couple of Winchesters that are solid performers and a few of them exceptional (solid MOA).

The four CZ's I have owned were solid, great shooters.

The three Kimbers I have owned were all MOA rifles.

So I am batting 2/6 counting my friends 22-250 and my 10/22 with Ruger experiences. I do not even know if I should include the 10/22 if we are talking centerfire rifles.

That is why I do not have confidence in Ruger rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
You sound paranoid. The grain of salt remark wasn't aimed at you personally.
Terry

Naw, not paranoid. Just "trolling" you out, to see if you could go beyond generalizations. Thanks for your response.

Love to mess with ya.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Kabluewy, you made a good point.

My remark about people buying a custom rifle stems from the discussions where folks have spent enough $$$ to have had a custom rifle built, while trying to get a less than perfect off the shelf factory rifle to perform at the level they are expecting.

Maybe I have been lucky or am just not as picky, but I have never owned a rifle of any make that did not perform to my expectations.

Thanks CHC, for the respect.

Likewise reciprocated.

I have had about equal results in satisfaction, (function and accuracy), from tweaked factory rifles and custom rifles. Frankly, some of the tweaked factory rifles have given greater satisfaction in one area, compared to custom rifles, and that's cost - preceived value for dollar expended.

Man, if I could truthfully say what you said in the last above quoted sentence, it would be a different view of the world.

On second thought, perhaps the CZ 550 medium comes as close as possible. However the last new 550 I bought, which was a 7x57 was disappointing, and I sold it immediately without even shooting it. CZ has changed the stock, and I don't like it. I like traditional checkering, and I don't like a big gap in the barrel channel. They messed with a good thing, IMO. Fortunately, I have all the rifles I need, perhaps excessively so. Hopefully, I can concentrate on shooting now, and finishing projects already started, rather than shopping. That's plenty to keep me busy, and I'll continue to sell off some of those that aren't satisfying anymore. It's been a constant cycle for several years, and I would like to shift from turnover to settling down to a few select satisfying rifles and putting them to use more often.

How's that for a new idea?

KB

I've shot three M77 Rugers enough to form an opinion of their function & accuracy; one Hawkeye & two older versions (.270, .308, 220 Swift).
All three have functioned flawlessly, with no feed, ejection or firing problems whatsoever.
The .270 Hawkeye & the 220 MkII are both sub MOA consistently.
The .308 has a beautifully crisp trigger but no matter what load we've tried, shoots patterns rather than groups.

I own two Ruger 77's. The first was a first generation RSM in 416 Rigby that I bought at a auction. The rifle shot fine, but if I worked the bolt very fast I would get jams. Even though the rifle was approx. 10 years old and I bought it used, Ruger said to send it back. When returned, it still had the same problem. I called and Ruger said to send it back again and they even paid the return shipping costs. This time they got it right and it feeds fine. Accuracy is fine with Barnes 400 Gr. solids. It shoots the solids in an honest 1" group at 100 yds. 400 Gr. TSX bullets shoot approx. 1.25 inch groups at the same range.

Recently I bought a Hawkeye .223 NIB off gunbroker. Ruger was not my first choice in this caliber, but I wanted a blue/walnut gun and the price ($430) was too good to pass up. I was planning on using 55 gr. bullets in this gun, but couldn't get any to shoot to my satisfaction. I tried Hornady, Sierra, Berry and midway dogtown bullets. All were with RL-15 powder and none shot that great. Groups were approx. 1.25 - 1.5 inches at 100 yds. Tried various overall lengths but the results were always the same.

I was thinking of freefloating and bedding the rifle when a friend gave me some Berger 52 Gr. bullets to try. What a difference. The first group was approx. .5 inches with all shots touching. With this load the gun now shoots great groups if I do my part.

quote:

Maybe I have been lucky or am just not as picky, but I have never owned a rifle of any make that did not perform to my expectations.

One can only assume you have never owned a Savage, Ruger, or Weatherby then!

Wrong, I have owned all three. In fact still have two Rugers and one Weatherby.

I just have not had any problems with any of them, and I do a fair amount of shooting and hunting.