Okay Gentlemen,

One brand new "African" in hand. Several have done a good job w/ getting out overviews and pics on theirs. I'm not trying to duplicate others, but I'd like to capture a bit more empirical data.

Just for right now some basics:

Out of the box it weighs 7pounds 14ounces. The trigger breaks at 4pounds 12ounces. It has the slightest amount of creep and overtravel that is barely perceptible. The muzzle diameter is .670" and the ring spacing is 4.910".

I intend to determine the exact factory torque setting(s) on the action screws and to determine additional measurements.

Initial subjective thoughts on the rifle:

Fit and finish is above par compared to previous mkIIs. The quality of wood and checkering is vastly improved. Not quite up to the better RSMs, but closer to the RSM than the previous mkIIs.

Quality of machining and assembly is excellent. I'll get a bore scope down it and will check some tolerances but it appears on par w/ the RSM.

Ergonomics of this rifle is excellent and takes it over the top. When compaired side by side to previous mkII wood and synthetic stocks, and compaired to Hawkeye synthetic stock; the "African" stock is head and shoulders above. This combined w/ the balance of the overall package is about as good as it gets.

Mounting optics on the Hawkeye will be much easier w/ shorter tube scopes and will allow for greater eye relief over standard action M70s. The factory express sights are the best I've seen and even appear to be an improvement over my favorite custom NECG express sights.

I'll begin to gather the data over the next couple of days. I intend to proof the rifle as is in the event I run into any problems needing it to be sent back. If all appears well, I'll put the stock in a milling machine and inlet it for the pillars (action screws), drill rod (web between mag box and trigger), and bedding surfaces. I'll probably use devcon for the bedding.

later,
GVA

I have a bit more to add:

I tested out the supplied D71"Matte Hawkeye"-medium ringmouts for scope clearance and eye relief. As with my other mkIIs and the low power scopes I use, I'll switch to the D71MH-lows when they become available. Other than this, every short tube Leupold scope I have will work.

I tried to think out of the box and decided to try something different. I have an older 2.5x28 scout w/ a German#1 i picked up from Premier Reticle. LEU specs indicate an eye relief of 9-18", but this particular scope gives full field of view down to nearly 5". Being the tube is long (5.6") and being the "African" has a short ring spacing (4.910"), I could easily mount the scope slightly forward giving me full view and a generous eye relief of approx 6". This combined w/ the fact that the scope only weighs 7.5ounces and has withstood the recoil of a rifle I have that generates approx 60ft-lbs, I think I'll give this a shot over the 2.5 Ultralight.

Done up w/ ringmounts, scope, and Butler Creek flip scope caps, the rifle weighs 8pounds 11ounces. I'll temporarily try out my mkII stainless low ringmounts to verify fit. I think the lows come in a couple of ounces lighter as well which would bring the package down to around 8 1/2pounds.

later,
GVA

I used a machined steel alignment lap to square the ringmounts to the receiver for maximum bearing surface contact. I then lapped the rings w/ 800 grit garnet lapping compound. This was a huge improvement. The 2.5X LEU is now true and square w/ no binding. The entire assembly comes off and goes back on slick and solid. To the best of my abilities (in the shop) using an accurate collimator, it appears to be very repeatable.

Once together I gave it a second look. With the medium ringmounts the scope is mounted 1.5" above the bore center. I often use the scope tube as a handle when afield and the medium rings place it about perfect for this.

Shouldering the rifle it appears the scout will work. I have full field of view through the scope and great eye relief. I can accurately get onto target w/ both eyes open. This gives me as much field of view as I can humanly see. The German #1 is super bold and stands out well, yet has a fine point at the aiming tip. I see no parallax issues at this stage. I'll test it for low light ability in the evening.

later,
GVA

I checked the three action screws for factory torque setting and it is off the chart! Front action screw was in at a measured 100in-lbs!! Rear action screw was at 45in-lbs and the center action screw was a bit tighter at 50in-lbs. The magazine box was binding at this setting. I checked for any signs of sealer or epoxy on the threads and found none. They were clean and dry. The stock must be tough as nails as I could see no evidence of any compression damage to the wood.

If anyone is interested in conversions, the factory box is 3.450" long and .935" wide at the rear.

As we all know now, the new trigger is visibly different from the previous mkII. Mine is dry and still breaks under 5pounds. I suspect by only adding a good lube the trigger will be closer to 4 1/2 pounds. This is about ideal for me in a medium weight hunting rifle.

The barrel contour appears fairly close to the 338mkII. The 338 has a .630" muzzle at 24" but quickly tapers up to around .650". The 375Ruger has a .670" muzzle but at 23". The end results is the 338mkII comes in bare at around 8pounds 6ounces while the 375Ruger is under 8pounds. As I have mine set up now, The 375Ruger all done up w/ scope is only 5ounces heavier than the bare 338mkII!!

I'll give more updates later,
GVA

Gary,
Thanks for the reports.
I agree!

A hidden cross bolt in the web between magazine and trigger wells, yes, that's what I will do too, and the rest as you say.

I like the 2.5-8X on this gun, but I have used 2.5X (Leupold)and 2.75X (Burris) Scout Scopes on Ruger No.1's in .416 Rigby and 450 NE, in the standard position, just pushed forward as far as possible.

With the 2.75X on a .416 Rigby I have dropped a fallow deer at 342 yards. It works.

An estimated recoil comparison between three identical weight big bores between 8pounds on the light end and 9pounds on the heavy end. This will give you guys a basic/rough idea on where the 375Ruger falls"

375H&H w/ 270gr bullet over 83gr H4350 @ 2690:
8pound rifle= 49ft-lb recoil @ 19fps recoil vel.
9pound rifle= 43ft-lb recoil @ 17fps recoil vel.

375Ruger 270gr bullet over 85gr H4350 @ 2780:
8pound rifle= 53ft-lb recoil @ 20fps recoil vel.
9pound rifle= 47ft-lb recoil @ 18fps recoil vel.

416Rem w/ 370gr bullet over 80gr R-15 @ 2450:
8pound rifle= 61ft-lb recoil @ 22fps recoil vel.
9pound rifle= 54ft-lb recoil @ 19fps recoil vel.

There are many variables to change these numbers a bit but they should be fairly close. IMHO, if one had difficulty handling the recoil of the 375Ruger, they would have difficulty handling the 375H&H.

*Note that above data is for recoil comparison only!!

GVA

A bit more to add before I forget:

I stripped the rifle completely down. Bolt, trigger, safety, etc. I stripped the parts of packing grease w/ CRC Degreaser then coated all the surfaces w/ Rust Prevent. Moving parts were greased and/or oiled w/ Tetra Gun.

As I had thought, one drop of Tetra on the sear and the trigger now breaks very clean at 4pounds 6ounces. Everything is slick w/out any binding. The bolt operates smooth like an RSM.

Now for the tricky part. I'd like to proof fire the rifle before bedding in the event it must go back. I doubt it will, but, better safe than sorry. No way in hell I'm going to torque this thing back to 100in-lbs on the front screw. What I did was play w/ the torque to see how far I could go before the mag box began to bind. The best I could do was 40in-lbs on the front screw, 30in-lbs on the rear screw, and 25in-lbs on the middle screw.

The stock itself is CNC inletted better than any production wood stock I've ever seen. There is no perceptible play in the barreled action whatsoever. It is nearly as snug as a bedded rifle. I hope that this combined w/ the torque settings I used will work out and keep the stock from splitting in two.

If you see anything alarming here, warn me before I go out and break something.

later,
GVA

An update on the 2.5X scout. It doesn't matter if they are on the receiver or on the barrel, they make piss poor low light hunting sights. In good light they have an advantage over the fixed sights in they clearly would be more accurate beyond about 50-75yards. Inside that range the scout is fast like the fixed sights because of your ability to keep both eyes open giving maximum field of view. In low light however, you can no longer take advantage of your non-dominant eye leaving only the field of view through the scope. Its about like looking through a toilet paper tube. At 50 yards the field of view is less than 12ft and it quickly shrinks as the distance shrinks. I think it would be dangerous to use for bear in low light.

I'm going to 86 the scout and go back to my plans for either the 2.5XUL, 1-4X or 1.5-5X to use for low light. Other than this, the new Ruger express sights really impress me. I'm unsure if it is the shape of the rear blade or what, but my eyes naturally focus on the front bead like when looking through a ghost peep. I actually have to fight my eyes to move my focus from the front to rear sight. Because of this, I'm able to get a clear sight picture down to the very last light. If I have enough light to see my target, I can clearly see my front sight. I cannot do this w/ my NECG express sights and I cannot do this w/ my XS ghost ring sights.

I'm on the fence whether to proof fire the rifle or not before bedding. I'm going to think about it a bit before I take the plunge either way.

later,
GVA

.........Gary this may be useless info but with my 1-4 Leupold that is in high rings on my Ruger 458...When set on 1x I can see the barrel 11 1/2 " foward of the scope andat 18 feet the fov is around 4 feet.. The barrel obstructes part of that fov but it is only about 1/4 of the pie...... That is good but for true low light I still found the need for a lighted reticle.......I,m thinking of trying the 1-4 LR Burris on my 458 Lott cum 460 Whby ..

That's not useless, it's a valid point that may bother some. It doesn't bother me one bit though, and here is my logic:

Take your scope off and take aim w/ your fixed sights. You'll most definitely see a good chunk of your barrel and it will take up a part of the pie. But, it will not hinder your ability to aquire your sights and to get those sights on target. When I put that scope on and see that same chunk of barrel it has no impact on my ability to aquire my sight and to get that sight on target. So, it bothers me none. I see no difference between the two.

later,
GVA

A note on factory ringmounts for the matte blue Hawkeye. I usually find the supplied medium height ringmounts a bit too high for my tastes when using low powered scopes. I alway phone Ruger and they quickly ship me a set of lows.

When I called Ruger they said they would ship me a set of "Low Hawkeye Matte" ringmounts ASAP. They went to fill my order within the hour of my call and discovered they were unavailable as of yet. They immediately phoned me back w/ the bad news. No estimate for availability but they will be produced at some point. I'll need to wait. Till then I'll use stainless mkII low ringmounts.

GVA

GVA,

That does not sound right that the box is binding with 100 inches but is OK with 40 inches..if nothing is crushing.

Personally, I like to shoot a big kicker a few times first up before bedding for two reasons:

1) Just to see how the rifle goes out of the box form a curiousity point of view.

2) I think it settles the stock in before bedding.

I am sure there is some form of compression that binds the mag box at the high torque setting. But, I see no evidence of any compression damage to the wood.

Everything is CNC tight on this rifle. Even w/ play in the box it is very minimal so the compression is very minimal to the point the box binds. I'll ensure proper clearance when I bed the rifle.

Even w/ pillars installed and the devcon bedding, I don't think I could get myself to torque it as high as factory.

GVA

GVA,

My experience has been that a well bedded rifle will shoot with screws that are not that tight...I am of course talking about the Devcon job etc.

Having aid that experience with Ruger is bery small and the angled screw could make some difference.

Anyway, keep us posted as it will be interesting to see how it all works out. Will you be developing any loads with the lighter bullets like the 225 grain Hornady.

An additional update:

I compared the measurements of the 375Ruger barrel contour with the factory inlet for a Ruger "canoe paddle" stock off a 338WM. They are identical. Next time I take the "African" down, I'll confirm that it is a drop in fit. This should give you some idea just how trim the "African" is.

later,
GVA

Damn it Gary! We need pictures! You can't write this much about a rifle and leave us dangling with no pictures of it. That's unfair!

I checked again on the "African" 375Ruger barrel contour compared to the mkII 338WM. They are identical from the receiver forward thru the stock forend. The "African" was a direct drop-in fit into a factory 338WM "canoe paddle" stock. The "canoe paddle" stock is almost a 1/4pound lighter than the wood making for a super light package. The fit on mine is CNC perfect. W/ the action screws torqued tight, the barreled receiver fits flat and square in the inlet w/ perfect play/clearance in the mag box.

I'm unsure if the "Alaskan" shares the same mkII 338WM/"African" contour. If it does, I'd toss the chunky hogue for the "canoe paddle". This stock is closer in profile to the wood "African" than the current "All Weather", and it is virtually indestructible. In addition, a one inch Outdoor Connection sling for the "paddle" stock only weighs 3oz total. So "African" w/ sling and low-power scope will be perfectly balanced and weigh no more than the 338WM bare out of the box. I see no other rifle available today to give you this much in such a great package for so cheap.

GVA

Gary

I like mine so much that I have a second on the way, a great buy from someone who couldn't take 375/338 type recoil. It was too good a buy to turn down...8 rounds fired from an included box of 270 gr ammo, unused dies, and the LINB rifle for $750.00, shipped.

As my signature says, I love Classic firearms. I believe this rifle will become one.

I'd like to post a pic of the rifle in the "canoe paddle" stock (in this thread).

Can I get someone to post it in the thread for me? I'll email you the pic.

Thanks,
GVA

Gary,
If you want me to post it here, email it to me. PM sent.

What is all this bs about the .375 Ruger? Don't you think you should just go shoot the thing w/o detorquing screws and all the screwball measurements that mean nothing. Had the action screws been treated w/ thread locker of some sort wouldn't they detorque at a higher number of in/# than they were origionally torqued? Why bed the thing if it doesn't need it? After all if it is destined to be a classic why ruin it. Have you ever gotten sick to your stomach at the sight of a "bedded" old model 70? I would just backoff and shoot and enjoy the thing. Dr.C

quote:

Originally posted by doccash:
What is all this bs about the .375 Ruger?
Dr.C

Mr. C,

Some take a camera and just take pictures w/out getting into the nuts and bolts of the thing. There is nothing wrong w/ that. Others like to get into the mechanics of the photography equipment which I suspect you are one. There is nothing wrong w/ that.

As to rifles, some like to collect and shoot them w/out getting into the nuts and bolts. That is fine. Myself, I like to to get into the mechanics of the rifle equipment. There is no bs about that.

GVA

Hello GaryVA,
I and some others several weeks ago noted that the torque was in the 100 in/lb. area and do recall you mentioning that such torque had nothing to do with the performance of the bedding. That case was the RSM and now we find that the Ruger African has similar torque settings and the question is why do they apply such torque to the screw if not needed?
Ruger I would say has more engineering expertise than this entire board and I for one would not presume to be more "expert" than those who engineer, build, and market, quite well I might add, the product. Did you torque to the 100 in/lb. level upon re-installing the stock to action or do you still think it is not necessary??

"My experience has been that a well bedded rifle will shoot with screws that are not that tight...I am of course talking about the Devcon job etc." - Superspeed

dsiteman,

That was Superspeed in a post on this thread above.

I think Ruger choosing to torque their front action screw in the 100 in-lb range w/ their rear and center screws in the 50 in-lb range is a testiment to how tight they CNC inlet their stocks and how strong their receivers are. If you look at the later wood stocked Remingon 700s, Remington loosened up their tolerances and have dropped the recommended action screw torque settings to only 12 in-lbs!! Otherwise you risk binding the action.

I'm old school and accustomed to the bedding techniques the cranks at Quantico used on rifles built for me. Not to say they are right and everyone else is wrong, I just know it works. On a wood stocked big bore that's well bedded, the action screws would be at a certain range or setting. If it is pillar bedded or a Mcmillan, it's at a higher setting range. My last M40 was in the 60 in-lb range. Your goal is to get the barreled action snug and tight in the stock while keeping it stress free. W/ the Ruger, you must take into account the additional center screw. On any rifle that is not squarely bedded this screw can wreak havock on accuracy by torquing the reciever.

The only thing I've pointed out about the RSM stock is the fact they leave little material in the webbing area between the mag box and trigger inlets. I've pointed out that I like how Winchester chose to reinforce this area on the M70 and I dislike how Ruger chose not to reinforce this area on the RSM. It does not matter how well the rifle is bedded or how snug the action screw is; forces from big bore recoil will attempt to push the sides of the wood stock outward w/ the only thing holding them together being this very tiny strip of wood. Over time it will develop a crack and eventually split clean through. Many shoot theirs that are split and are none awares, that's their choice. I choose to take 5 minutes and reinforce mine w/ a pin, then move on.

My African now sits in a "canoe paddle" stock that was a take-off from a 338WM mkII. If you examine one, you'll notice that it has an almost identical shape and feel of the newly beloved "African" wood stock. It is not boxy like the current "All Weather" synthetic stock. I think the "canoe stock" got a bad rap for its utilitarian looks and its tire rubber pad. Myself, I like it as it is stiff and about as tough and indestructible as any stock you can get. It is CNC inletted and fits the 375Ruger perfectly. Currently I have mine torqued 40 in-lb front, 30 in-lb rear and 25 in-lb center. The mag box has perfect clearance and there is no binding. My RSM's were set approximately the same but they were bedded and pinned.

GVA

Gary: I have an old RSM (24" barrel and no barrel band and heavier contour barrel) that my gunsmith glassbedded for me. It has a lot of rounds through it,probably over 500 and a trip to africa and it shots great. I'm interested in that cross pin you speak of in the area between the mag bosx & trigger inlet. Can you describe this better or post a picture pls? thanks, jorge

jorge,

I did mine just like Winchester did on their M70 Classic Featherweight rifle. drilled from one side to intall a threaded stock pin. Counter sink the same side w/ the pin below the surface. Coat the treads and fill the countersunk area w/ Marine-Tex grey. W/ one light dap of plain Acraglass or any clear coat, the Marine-Tex looks like an ebony plug. You can also redo the Ruger cross screw so it looks like ebony plugs as well.

On my CZ 550s I used Talley cross-bolts that were countersunk below the surface. I also covered them w/ Marine-Tex to look like ebony plugs.

GVA

OK, thanks, so looking at the rifle from the right side, the plug lies on a line just forward of the trigger guard and behind the nmazine box, almost under the bolt handle? jorge

The center of the rear crossbolt/pin/screw would fall slightly lower than the front as the meat of the webbing sits lower. Winchester drilled and put their faux ebony cap on the right side which is what I did. But, I see no reason why you cannot go from the left side or do both sides. Remove your triggerguard and you'll see from the bottom where the hole/pin would fall. I countersunk/made my faux ebony cap to be the same size as the screw head on the front crossbolt.

GVA

I'm not sure how much help this will be, but I'll add a couple of things..

My Alaskan is pillar bedded which, in my experience, works pretty good, but not as good as full bedding and/or pillars wiht full bedding.

I took the stock off and cleaned up the action/barrel a bit, and then screwed it back on, using my normal procedure for Ruger rifles: Tighten up the front screw really good, the rear one pretty good, and the middle screw just tight.

Went to the range and I shot groups around an inch, which is about th best I could do wiht a trigger that has some creep in it. But I really don't need any more than 1" or so accuracy form a 375, so I'm happy wiht that.

I have a torque wrench but never thought to use it.

I suppose that if it woudln't shoot, I woudl start looking at all the variables, including bedding the rifle, but since it seems to work just fine as it is, I will keep my life simple!

Posted for GaryVA, the Ruger M77 Hawkeye "African-Alaskan" .375 Ruger: This will save the pretty walnut from foul weather

I have a 300 Winchester Magnum M77 MkII in a stock like that, and I would never change it due to the fact that it is 1/2 MOA for 3 shots at 100 yards.

I am sure this rifle is capable of similar performance and it is still a spritely handling rifle.

Those stocks are tough as nails I saw a guy run over one with a truck without damage.You do need a decelerator recoil pad on it.I think a laminated stock would be awesome on one too.I can wait till they come out with a 416 ruger comes out.

Do the Ruger "canoe paddles" have the same contour down the barrel channel regardless of caliber?
I'd love to have a SS Hawkeye Alaskan but don't care for the Hogue stock. I've seen Houge handgun grips get gummy with certian bug dopes up here.

The canoe paddle stock and the newer tupperware stocks have at least 2 different barrel channel profiles I know of:

1).30-06
2) 300 WinMag

There may be more.

Rip.
I plan to replace my M77 / 35 Whelen in the "Canoe paddle stock" after fitting a 1" Decellerator pad on it.
I agree...not a show piece, but tough as heck!

What I like to know is what gun sling you got on the rifle on the picture, and what´s your experience with such a design ?

GR and Arild,

The rifle in the pic is mine from this thread. I describe the stock fit and sling above in the thread (here):

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/...=916104646#916104646

You'll need a "canoe paddle" stock from a magnum rifle (7mm, 300wm, 338wm). These, including the 375Ruger share the same contour from the receiver to the end of the forend. This particular stock is probably the strongest factory synthetic ever made. They are insanely stiff and are molded for a CNC fit. This is why they generally enhance accuracy over the factory wood or later "all weather" stocks.

I for one like the factory tire rubber pad. Just like hard core runners prefer thin socks and hardcore moutain bikers prefer hard seats; I like the firm pad which greatly improves control and recovery of the rifle during recoil. Recoil is subjective and I find this class of cartridge not to be excessive enough for me to give up the firm pad for a sloppy/squishy one.

Overall, if you examine this stock, it is closer to the shape and feel of the "African" stock than the "all weather". It is truly utilitarian and is a workhorse, not a looker.

Same goes for the sling, it is utilitarian. It is not obtrusive when I include it in my grip, it works well enough as a hasty sling, and it is reliable for carry.

If I had the "Alaskan", I'd toss the Hogue in favor of a Rimrock ($$$ end) or "canoe paddle" and/or "all weather" (cheap end).

GVA

Hello GaryVA,
Your Ruger is definitely set up to "take care of business..." and one of the most practical/honest hunting rifles out there today I would say. (Big Ruger Fan I am) Had one years ago in SS and 308 and replaced the fillers for pistol grip areas and forearm with some sort of nice looking walnut w/lots of burl, it was scrap to somebody, and gave the thing a very nice appearance. Nothing wrong with the black inserts and Ruger should take note and introduce one like yours and refer to it as Severe Service, Expedition Grade, or some such handle. Would sell like hotcakes I would say to those wanting or needing pure and basic hunting rifle.

GaryVA, your African looks pretty cool in that "canoe paddle" stock. Well done!

Anyone know where one might find a "canoe paddle" stock for sale? Does Ruger sell replacements?

Cheers,
Canuck

I've always loved that canoe-paddle stock actually. The stainless Rugers with that stock are the ultimate "utilitarian" rifle - nearly indestructible and a true tool of the rugged outdoorsman.

I've got a stainless pair of MkII Rugers in .22 rimfire and 30-06 with that stock. With those two rifles I can travel the world and want for nothing.

I prefer to get rid of the rattling sling hangers on those stocks. Uncle Mike's made an inexpensive kit to do this, to convert it to the standard type stud for use of the Super Swivels, and fill the holes left when the hangers are removed.

OK, I've done some looking and can't seem to find any info on the Uncle Mike's conversion for the sling hangers. Can't you give me some more info on them or a link?

Should I bed the rifle in the canoe paddle?
If so, what bedding compound should I use?