This started out as a problem with getting a third round down into the mag box. After talking to Duane about a possible "coffin" type floorplate I came up with the following and was originally a PM to Duane.

Posted 27 May 2010 08:40
Don't know if you remember or not, my request due to the client's request to get at least three down in a rebarreled m70 classic to 375 Ruger. It came back after another guy gave me the part number of the folower and spring he was using and I tried that. Didn't work. The damn mag box, as you suggested, is too narrow. I bit the bullet and cut the front of the box, added about 3/16 and welded it up, Had to open up the bottom of the receiver and the stock to match and with a little tweaking of the existing rails and the new spring and old follower, she feeds like the proverbial "snake through a sewer pipe". And, it will now hold four down.

Thanks, just had to have the balls to open up the receiver.

Jim: You da man ....... As good as it gets. I know this from my experiences in dealing with you.

That's what separates the men from the boy's.

But also having the forethought to think through what you are doing as to not ruin the receiver. Good deal

Since my M70 in 338WM is not where I can get it out and look at it right now, based on memory, doesn't the cartridges basically feed off the lips of the sheet metal magazine box rather than the action side rails?

As I was reading your post about success in getting it to feed, congratulations BTW, I was comparing actions in my mind. I've read some critisism of the CZ for example having a seperate sheet metal box for a magazine, and thus the "need" for a custom unit that resembles the one piece Mauser unit. I'm just wondering why the CZ is critised for the sheet metal box, when at least it feeds off the action rails, and the M70 feeds off the sheet metal box lips, which seems to be perfectly fine with gunsmiths, and others?

Also, I was thinking about the Ruger receiver, comparing it to a M70. About a month ago, I didn't know that the barrel threads for the M70 push feed and the R77 are the same. Lo and behold. Also, about the same time, I learned that the Ruger and the M70 both don't have the "ring" of a Mauser (C or H) for the barrel to seat upon. Instead the barrel seats against the face of the receiver, as I remember. And the CZ seats just like a Mauser, because the CZ has a C-ring inside the breech.

Some time ago, I tried the Ruger 375 cartridges in a Ruger MKII receiver, which was barreled in 300WM, just to see how they fit and fed. They didn't feed as well as the 300WM, but fed ok. I can't remember if there was trouble getting three down. Then I found out that the factory parts, particulatly the box and follower, are available from Ruger. So, that should be an easy conversion, or of course the factory Ruger is available reasonably.

Anyway, congratulations on "making it feed", especially getting four down. I'm sure your customer appreciates it. I surely appreciated it when I discovered my M70 in 375H&H would hold four down, when my gunsmith returned it to me. While he was bedding in the McMillan stock, and some other work, he took the liberty (and charged me for it too) of changing the follower and the spring. The box was not changed. I don't know where that follower came from, but it ain't Winchester, nor is the spring - it's missing the hump. He had ground off the edges of the follower to make it fit and move freely, and it's thinner than the original, so it doesn't ride up against the bottom of the bolt so tight with an empty magazine. Anyway, that 375H&H is sure a sweet feeding cartridge, especially in that action.

KB

Or for that matter why a lot of Gunsmiths and gun owners (I'm generalizing here with a very broad stroke) Believe that the Ruger action is little more then junk that can not be built to produce decent accuracy. And that to get Great accuracy you need a Rem action.

Just doesn't make sense to me since if you are building a rifle wouldn't you blue print the action first and make corrections as needed to attain the highest degree of accuracy you desire???

No actions is junk some just require more work then they are worth.

A few months ago I got pissed with my Rugers, because I discovered that on some of them, the firing pin strike isn't centered on the primer. It's a long story. I felt disgusted, and considered selling them all. But then I started figuring out which one to list first. I couldn't do it. Except that I did sell a stainless 30-06 that I now wish I had not sold, because after I sold it I discovered that I have a 9.3x62 stainless PacNor barrel taken off a Win 70 push feed that just screws into a Ruger receiver just great.

After thinking about it, I decided so what - the primer strike isn't centered, as it generally is with my CZs for example? I have three simi-custom rifles built on Ruger MKII actions. Each action was trued up before installing the barrel, lapping and squaring, and surely the custom barrels help. So the primer strike still is not perfectly centered even on the rebarreled Rugers, but that fact does not appear to have any effect on accuracy, or function, so now I just ignore it. The Rugers I have with custom barrels are very accurate, which makes the factory barreled Rugers look bad, and frankly boreing. As a result of that, I regard any Ruger rifle a donar action.

IMO, Ruger 77 MKIIs are not junk, instead they are too easy. That's why I think some gunsmiths don't like them.

KB

I think most clients don't like them because they don't look like a mauser, especially the ugly dog leg bolt handle.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
I think most clients don't like them because they don't look like a mauser, especially the ugly dog leg bolt handle.

Funny thing is, I have more requests to have that funny dogleg handle welded on than any other. Personally, I hate it, but then again, if I can't give my customers what they want, what good am I to them?

I like those classic style bolt handles on the Mausers, etc., but that's mostly style, and maybe in some cases to help avoid getting whacked in the knuckles with a hard kicker. I never had that trouble with the bolt handle, but I get whacked in the knuckle by the back of the trigger guard.

The bolt handle on a Ruger is one of its great features, dog-leg or not. IMO, a guy is wasting his money messing with changing it, since it generally universally works. Saves money to put on a quality barrel, and maybe a trigger.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
I think most clients don't like them because they don't look like a mauser, especially the ugly dog leg bolt handle.

A lot of guys are into style, and will spend the money to get it. It's not all about being practical to them, which is OK.

A lot of guys, especially for competition or long range, put accuracy at the top priority, which is why the Rem 700 is popular. The thing that gets me a little is, for top accuracy, the 700 has to be really worked over, and there are several excellent 700 type clones now, which are ready to barrel out of the box. Seems a little hypocritical and a bit foolish to spend a bunch on a blue printed 700 yugo, when for about the same money one could have a Rolex.
KB

I have a freind that owns a M77 MK II safari (African) what ever. It was originally chambered in 375 HnH and is now a .505 Gibbs That rifle now has over $5K in it. and it's still a Ruger... Like that's a bad thing or something

Well, IMO one would have to try pretty hard to get that much in a Ruger. But, chit, there's guys that put that much in a phuckin Argentine 1909 custom. That's a classic good money after bad. I don't see how that can be a good thing.

KB

My 1891 Argentine will cost me near a grand when done. I'm rebuilding it only because it was the first rifle I bought.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Well, IMO one would have to try pretty hard to get that much in a Ruger. But, chit, there's guys that put that much in a phuckin Argentine 1909 custom. That's a classic good money after bad. I don't see how that can be a good thing.

KB

Your are really asking for a fight!

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:
Your are really asking for a fight!

Yea. trolling Go ahead, make my day, amuse me with your $5,000 1909.

And I'll show you pictures of three nice Sakos, and a Browning Medalion you could have had instead of that set-back POS.

KB

quote:

Yea. trolling Go ahead, make my day, amuse me with your $5,000 1909.

And I'll show you pictures of three nice Sakos, and a Browning Medalion you could have had instead of that set-back POS.

I would never begin to argue that for a simply funcioning hunting rifle you don't need to spend more than a few hundred$. These rifles would be plenty accurate. Past that you are going for what you feel is beauty, class, history, resale, and any number of other reasons you have for spending the $$$ it is in my opinion way past a functioning hunting rifle.

To me the Ruger falls in the same bucket as a MKX. Heck even the FN. Darn good actions. They can be made into great rifles. They will simply never carry the resale and appeal of an older Mauser action. It's not about function simply market desire and demand.

Why is one old car a classic the other the same age a simple used car. Such is life.

Yes, real eyebrows, classic and classy, very nice. Superlative, Knowledgeable, Erudite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erudition

KB

Did anyone really give a $hit about my original post, or did you just want me to comment of the viability of the Rugers?

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

As I was reading your post about success in getting it to feed, congratulations BTW, I was comparing actions...........

Anyway, congratulations on "making it feed", especially getting four down. I'm sure your customer appreciates it.
KB

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Kobe:
Did anyone really give a $hit about my original post, or did you just want me to comment of the viability of the Rugers?
Jim

I certainly did !!!
Comment on Rugers, or whatever you want. However, a discussion on the "viability" of Rugers would be a short topic, IMO.

Then, maybe not, I like definition 3 c (1) & (2):

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/viability

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/RGR
KB