The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing Ruger 77Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Ruger 77 | Login/Join |
| Moderator |
I believe the original 77's had a two position tang safety which did not block the firing pin but just the sear. I'm not sure how much of an issue this is in the real world but it maybe one when you consider laywers and lawsuits. I'm not sure about the aftermarket trigger, but I had a good smith look at the horrible trigger on my 77Mk11 and he stoned it down until it is a crisp 3lb and breaks like a glass rod. Pete [This message has been edited by Pete E (edited 04-24-2001).] | |||
|
| <Long Shot> |
Timney makes a trigger ($68 @ Midway). I have a Timney trigger that I pulled off a M77 before I sold it. Would be willing to trade for brass or bullets. If interested, check my profile and e-mail me. If I recall correctly, installing the timney trigger requires minor inletting of the stock. Regards, Long Shot | ||
|
| one of us |
I think that if there was a perceived problem with the original M77 it was more likely that Ruger did not make it a controlled feed. I don't think the trigger was all that bad though I think Ruger did want to get away from the adjustable trigger. I had no objection to the tang safety.Regards, Bill. | |||
|
| <holtz> |
DOC, This is a matter of personal opinion - likes and dislikes. As mentioned above, some will site the lack of a three position safety. I feel this is bunk. Either you can unload a rifle safely, or not. The tang safety is natural and fast. With a little Teflon it can be made almost totally silent. The lack of controlled round feeding is cited by others, but again, this is a non-issue unless dangerous game is the quarry. Even then, I have never been convinced of it's advantage in the real world. The rifle has an excellent trigger. If it does not already break like glass, a smith can make it do so for a few dollars. And it can easily be adjusted from the outside. You can safely go down to at least two pounds, maybe even more. The actions are very smooth and I have never found one that would not shoot 1" groups with good loads. Some of the earlier ones even had nice wood. I will not argue with those who bemoan the 22" barrel, but its no biggie. Overall I think they are one of the best rifles ever made. The barreled actions make a wonderful custom rifle. Steve [This message has been edited by holtz (edited 04-25-2001).] | ||
|
| Moderator |
Bill, Are you sure about the original Mk1's not being CRF??? The reason I ask is that I have an early Mk11 which id definately not CRF. When I mentioned this on these forums I was If your a shotgun man I would say the tang safety would be a definate plus. It would certainly buy a Mk1 and prefer Rugers to regards, Pete | |||
|
| one of us |
How do you tell what model you have.What year it was made. All my 300 Win mag has on it is 77-05799 RUGER M77 RR | |||
|
| Moderator |
RR, A Mk1 will have a 2 position tang safety while the Mk11's will have a 3 position safety next to the bolt. If your rifle has CRF the bolt will actually pick a round up and feed it into the chamber whilst a non CRF will simply push it forward. On anything other than a "dangerous game" rifle CRF is really not an issue. regards, Pete | |||
|
| <DOC> |
quote: | ||
|
| <DOC> |
I like the tang safety, It is very fast in operation and feels more natural to me. The 22 inch barrel fine by me, and if it shoots halfway decent I'll keep it. The Ruger Mod. 77 is like the Ruger line of double action revolvers in that looks were not considered. This is ok with me too, as this will be a working gun not a showpiece. CRF would be nice, but I don't consider it a must. This rifle will be chambered in a 2.5" cartridge on standard, magnum or .404 case head of .308-.375 caliber. In other words, I don't know yet. Let me hear some ideas one a general purpose medium bore. DOC | ||
|
| one of us |
quote: According to"Ruger and his Guns" by R.L.Wilson, You have a M77 made in 1982. | |||
|
| <R. A. Berry> |
The original Ruger M77 was definitely a pushfeed with a plunger ejector but an extractor that looked like the CRF Mauser claw but only snapped over the cartridge when seated in the chamber. The initial Mark II 77's were pushfeed but had the Mauser type fixed ejector and claw extractor and could be easily made into CRF by milling off the "weak sister" on the bottom of the bolt face. The Mark II quickly became CRF in the subsequent factory production. I've got one of all three types of these rifles and lived through the process of the Ruger metamorphosing into the fine rifle that it is today. Excellent rifle and always has been. I could never trade my old "Round Top" Ruger M77 pushfeed. That was before Ruger put the integral scope bases on all their guns. That .30-06 was my first bolt action centerfire. Still shoots 0.5 MOA. ------------------ | ||
|
| Moderator |
Ron, When did Ruger go to the integral bases?? Pete | |||
|
| one of us |
The 77s were originally made with integral bases. The round top was a variation offered concurrently with the integral base model. Early on I saw them in .284 Win.(I had one in 72) and in 350 Rem mag. On the one 350 I saw the barrel was marked "Krupp Steel" and it was a new factory rifle. The bolt handle on the first ones was a little strange and was subsequently changed. Regards, Bill. | |||
|
| <1Swede> |
I bought my M77 .270 in the late 70's. Except for making sure the barrel was free floated I haven't done a thing to the rifle. Using sierra 130gr and H4831 powder it will shoot right around 1" all day. I've never had a problem with it. Steve | ||
|
| <R. A. Berry> |
Pete E, Bill Leeper is right. The "round top" was offered in addition to the Ruger ring system for a short time early on. This was to allow attachment of other types of rings and bases for those who wanted that option. Not many did and Ruger soon went to the integral bases and Ruger rings exclusively on the M77, both pre- and post- Mark II. ------------------ | ||
|
one of us |
Doc, I had a M77 action & decide to use it as a basis for my .338-06: The M77 are not CRF but as previously stated, mot an issue on a non-DGR. The .338-06 or 35 WHelen would be good med. bore choices. A 9.3x62 is another option if you want something really different. | |||
|
| <JoeM> |
Hello, I have always admired Ruger because they tend to chamber in a slightly wider array of rounds than does most of the competition. The one drawback that I see, and I do not know if this is a real world problem, is the way the stock mounts to the action, with the angled screw. I have heard some smiths complain. ------------------ | ||
|
| <Adirondack Joe> |
DOC, as far as the action goes, I am not too sure about real disadvantages. Today's M77MKII is pretty much an updated mauser action with an integral scope mounting system and a 3 position safety. The safety issue, as noted before, can be a personal issue. I own a Browning which has a two position tang safety that locks the action, and to be perfectly honest, I would prefer a system that allowed me to unload my chamber with the safety on. One thing that could be a disadvantage is inconsistancies in the barrels. Way back when, Ruger did not make their own barrels. The barrels they got were not terribly consistant from one run to another. They could get some that were really great, and then they could get some barrels that were not exactly tack drivers. Eventually, Ruger bought their own cold hammer forging equipment and they currently make their own barrels as well as they make their actions. If you have an older Ruger rifle that has a barrel that was bad from the factory, you can send it to Ruger and they will rebarrel it in its original chambering for free. | ||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |