Since I'm a fan of the M77 MkII rifle, and as such I think this is probably the besto you can obtain for the cost (high value in other words), emphasizing :

1) true CRF action
2) 3-pos safety (frame mounted)
3) Integral scope mounts
4) All SS construction

But, what I'd like to gain is some insight from others who don't like this rifle and to learn why.

Please, let me know your critics!

The main thing is that angled action screw. Gunsmiths tell me it's hard to work with for pillar bedding, a basic step for good accuracy. I think Rugers are great if you're not trying to achieve exceptional accuracy. Some Rugers shoot very well, but if you get one that doesn't, you're in for an interesting project. I have an old tang safety mod. 77 in .270 that I dearly love. I shot my first deer with it, and still love to carry it to this day. Other than a little trigger work it is "as is" from the factory. It has always shot well with good ol' Remington green box 130 grain core-lokts. 1.5 inch three shot groups at 100 yds. Since most shots at deer here in Eastern Nebraska are under 250 yards, it has always been just fine for that application.

My other comment is about the Ruger synthetic "paddle" stocks, which were surely the ugliest thing ever created. I see that Ruger has now fixed this abomination.

Roger

In principle, I like the Ruger M-77 a lot, especially the original version, albeit that rifle didn't feature a true controlled-feed action. I liked the tang safety, the triggerguard design, trigger, and the shape of the stock plus the general quality of the wood, checkering and blueing better on the old Ruger.

The trouble was, Ruger obtained it's barrels at that time from an outside vendor, and those barrels were not of consistent high-quality. To be sure, some of those rifles were tackdrivers, but many were dogs. One of my hunting partners bought an early Ruger 77 .30-06 back in the early 1970s, and he still has it. It's one of those semi-rare specimens with the hollow bolt handle. That rifle shoots sub-inch five-shot groups all day long with Remington 180 gr. factory ammo, and it's never changed zero - this with no bedding work, just a trigger job.

I owned several Ruger 77s in .338 Winchester that were incredibly inaccurate (as in minute-of-foot) dogs - all except one, that its. That was one of the later original M-77s that came with an uncheckered laminated stock. This rifle I rebedded myself, and I had a local gunsmith work the trigger. With 250 gr. Hornady handloads, that rifle would produce consistent 3/4" five-shot groups at 100 yds., it was fast (2750 fps. with reasonable pressures), plus it fed superbly. I didn't like the uncheckered, slick-feeling stock, however, so in a fit of madness I sold it to a friend who wanted it very badly, and he still has it. That .338 was the best Ruger I ever owned, and one of the top three .338s of any kind that I ever owned, including custom.

I don't care for the trigger design and safety on the current Ruger, nor do I like the newer stock shape, wood quality, or machine-cut checkering. It lacks the finish of the old rifle. The safety is sort of like a Model 70 safety, but it's too small and ten times harder to work, even though it's a safer safety than the old M-77's was. It's very awkward. I do like the new, true controlled-feed action re-design. Supposedly, Ruger's in-house-made, hammer-forged barrels are much more consistent than the old ones. But based on what I've seen at our gun club and my own experience with a Mark II .280 Remington, I'd say accuracy is just about as big an exercise in potluck as it was with the old ones.

I always say this, however: If you have a good, accurate, and consistent Ruger, you have a good rifle. Getting your hands on one can be another story....

AD

Allen,

You mentioned that you had a "fast" Ruger. Mine is actually "slow", which makes me frown, but again, for what I use it for, it's no big deal...

R

What about the paddle stocks? They are certainly ugly but they seem to be quite stiff, particularly in the forearm. For an inexpensive synthetic stock, are they a better platform for barreled actions than loosey, noodley synthetic stocks of Winchester and Remington?

I heard all the talk about rugers and the horror stories, I wanted a .22-250 and really prefered to have a remington or a savage. So i asked for one for christmas not thinking that I would actually get a gun for christmas I ended up getting one and my dad picked a ruger. I was a little worried at first, I had the trigger set at 2.5#'s before i ever shot it. first few trips to the range showed groups about 1.25" with factory stuff, so i thought ok lets do some handloads well with the first batch of hands loads that i made for the gun I got a group of .651" I am very pleased with the results of the gun so far, A few things that i don't like however is mainly the trigger it sure aint like my remington 700, I prefer the saftey on the 700, why the heck did they get rid of the tang saftey anyways?? I also wish my stock was a monte carlo type but oh well it fits good. Overall I am happy oh BTW my buddy has a tang saftey 6mm that shots under .5" all day long

The only problem with the Ruger 77s is the triggers. The trigger on the original worked pretty well but was a stupid design. The MK11 is a dismal trigger no matter how it is viewed.
Apart from that, I like the angled guard screw and I like the integral mounts though I think they should have been more like Talleys. Regards, Bill.

I have a stainless Ruger in .338WM, and so far I am very pleased with it. I can't tell much about accuracy since it is a big game rifle, but I have killed several moose with it, and most with one shot. The average distance has been from 100 yards to 250, maybe a little farther, and only one moose walked about 25 yards after the shot.

I replaced the "boat paddle" stock, and it looks much better now. But since this rifle is a tool I use to kill moose, I used 'the best for its money" stock I could find, a Hogue Rubber-Overmolded. It may not look too much beautiful, but the aluminum pillars and an a better recoil pad than the previous one makes it a more pleasant shooter.

Since I like stainless/synthetic combinations, I don't waste my time on "bedding," specially with big game rifles. Instead of spending time bedding a rifle, I prefer to buy a synthetic stock with pillars as a start, or with a full-aluminum bed if I have the extra money. The Hogue stock with a full aluminum bed costs $200.00, while the one with pillars costs $100.00.

About the Ruger trigger: Any good gun smith can work a Ruger trigger any way you want. The problem would be to find the right gun smith, but once you do he or she can use the instructions at the following site:

http://www.centerfirecentral.com/77trigger.html

The instructions are very clear, and include drawings with the precise dimensions for filing and polishing the trigger assembly. But I would not let anybody touch the trigger, unless he or she is a good gun smith. besides, the instructions are only intended for gun smiths to use.

Timney makes excellent triggers, as well as other companies. I used a Timney on my rifle.

Gentlemen,

I have a Ruger M77 MkII in 7mm Rem Mag, and it has been an amazingly accurate rifle. It shot ok with the factory canoe-paddle stock, but I hated the stock, so I replaced with with a Hogue Overmolded Pillar-bedded model for $100. Worth every penny and more. I have 10 different loads worked up for it that are sub-MOA. Velocities are also "fast".

The trigger is a bit stiff, especially when compared with my Ruger M77 RSM in .416 Rigby. It's good enough for me though, and has been along with me for many hunts, here and abroad. It's a make of rifle I would strongly recommend.

Joel Slate
Slate & Associates, LLC
www.slatesafaris.com

7mm Rem Mag Page www.slatesafaris.com/7mm.htm

The first thing to do is get rid of the trigger snd replsc it with a Timney or something. My MDL77 MK II 7RM went from an "okay" grouper to a excellent group rifle after I changed this.

I used to defend the paddle stocks a bit. Ugly, but strong.

Then I replaced mine with a B&C bargain synthetic and it shot better and the recoil was MUCH less noticable. THe paddle stocks have a pretty narrow butt pad, and I think they can exagerate recoil. Plus they ARE ugly.

I like the Ruger safety. I like that they fit into a little slot in the cocking piece, and they seem smoother and quieter than a off the shelf Winchester.

I don't think the angled action screw is a big disadvantage. If youneed to bed it, it takes a little more care, but the screwing in technique is easy.

I like the integral scope mounts, and like Bill. I just wish they were more like Talley's but they're pretty darn good. I don;t know why more manufacturers don;t simply machine in scope mounts.

I could shoot MOA groups with X bullets, partitions and Hornadys with my rifle, it fed well and fast. What more do you need in a hunting rifle.

Mine was stolen by some punk. I'd still like to get my hands on the little prick.

I bought a 458W Ruger RS long time ago.Killed lots of deer with 350&400 grain bullets,Rechambered it to my 458 Hubel Express
wildcat(450 grain bullet over 3000 fps for example), a cartridge 3.45 in long and straight sided.Its classic stock shoots more comfortable than the neighbors 460 Weatherby, even though
I have 20% more energy.And the action is strong
and saved my hide from a mistake when load testing
for the wildcat.When testing if a case got a little sticky, rather than reefing on bolt and
tearing up the rim I had a rod that I dropped
in barrel to help extraction.It was shorter than
and I got distracted and left rod in.Went back 2 hours later loaded a round with 350 gr bullet, gun reared up and chrono said 1500 fps instead
of around 3400 I was expecting.Bolt would move, noticed rod wasn't on table, went to backstop
and rod was out throgh back of it.When I loaded
it must have been tight to bullet so as to act like big bullet not an obstruction.Had to turn
barrel and flowed brass out with lathe.Had the long barrel coming any to test velocities.Thought
I had ruined action.Had it checked, and I lapped lugs and rebarreled, and shot a thousand loads.
We measured another rod and that plus bullet weighed 3350 grains at 1500 made over 16,000 foot
lbs.We figured it was about a 150,000 psi load.
I have base of cartridge yet, and shows where it forced brass back into ejector hole.Great strong gun.I showed Bill JR the piece of brass at 99Atlanta shot show, and thanked him and Dad for
a strong rifle.He still thinks I'm the biggest nut ever. The reason I could tested these hairy loads from bench was extra wt and a heavy
rest clamped to barrel, but this load reared it up about a foot.Ed.

I too love my 77's, my two,280 & 250 are tang safty models & both shoot very well. I had no problem bedding either of them & I too like the angled action screw. Now if I can just pry a early 308 in a international away from my dealer buddy????

I have (3) Ruger bolt action rifles. All Mark II's. I have a 300 win mag that shoots 3/4" groups. A 270 that shoots Minute of angle and an International 243 that shoots just over an inch. I replaced teh trigger in my 300 with a Timney but the other 2 are acceptable. I have never had to bed any of my Rugers in order to get them to shoot well........and with FACTORY ammo. I also like the angled action screw. It seems to me this is teh reason I have never needed to glass bed my Rugers. I also like the 3-position safety better than the one on my Wichester model 70s. All things being equal, I feel that Rugers are the best bargains on the market.

I like the M77 fairly well too as a basic 'stock' hunting rifle. The safety wing is a little small however. I am surprised some enterprising company or individual hasn't marketed a replacement safety wing that is larger. The trigger is usually pretty stiff. I don't think the M77 CRF is a pure crf. At least my rifle is an occasional crf, occasional pushfeed. Just watch the cartridges as they feed from the magazine-some are caught by the extractor, some or not. Mine (.260) shoots fairly well and I sort of like the ugly boat paddle stock. I mean it is hard to make a stainless/synthetic pretty anyway imho.

I like the integral scope base dovetails, blade ejector, and bolt stop. I would prefer steel bottom metal but you can't have everything for $450. Plateau Hunter

[ The trigger is usually pretty stiff. I don't think the M77 CRF is a pure crf. At least my rifle is an occasional crf, occasional pushfeed. Just watch the cartridges as they feed from the magazine-some are caught by the extractor, some or not.

Regarding the true CRF behavior that is mentioned by Plateau, mine also do the same thing... I wondered why for so long ... Does anybody an idea of why this is happening ?

Hubel, please can you give us more info on that .458 HE ??

Tks!

Gustavo-Case is 3.45 in long.Gets a 450 gr bullet
over 3000fps.The complete information and some pictures are in Big Bore Forum in the thread
named--Brass;Bertram,Bell and Norma .Ed.

The reason I'm not a M77 MKII fan is that I've owned two of them and neither one will group worth a hoot. The first one was a .270 RSI with a 18" barrel. They should've never made that rifle and I certainly never should have bought it. It kicked like a .338 win mag, was loud enough burst your ear drums and had enough muzzle flash to set the woods on fire. All this would have been easily ignored if it would have been a shooter, but the best it would do was about 6" @100yds! hand loads and factory stuff. I did all the usual stuff, bedded the action, had my smith lighten the trigger, changed the scope, all to no avail. So I took it to the gun show (where all none shooting rifles go) and traded it in on a NIB .243 MKII stainless laminated model with a 22" barrel. Took it out shoot it and the best it'll do is about 4" @100yds! Now that was with Remington 100gr core-locks and admittedly after 30 rounds I put the rifle away and have yet to get it out of the safe again, but that just sucks! spraying bullets all over the target like an assault rifle. I've got a NEF handi rifle in a 45-70 with no scope that'll group better than that. Rugers are beautiful rifles and I like the MKII safety better than the original but I've invested hard earned cash in two now and neither one was or is a performer. Terry

I've got a M77 early model in .280. At first it vertically strung out its shots but I free floated the barrel and bedded the action and it became a very good shooter. It's the rifle I grab when I go to a turkey shoot and is my best shooting centerfire. I do have to work at keeping the bore clean as it will copper foul pretty badly. I would have replaced the barrel, if the dang thing didn't shoot so well. I like the tang safety, and stock design. I'll always have it.

I have no knowledge about current M77's, but I once bought a new round-receiver M77 in 7X57mm, because it was the only M77 (or any American rifle, for that matter) being made in 7X57mm at the time. Since I never use factory ammo for anything, after mounting a Bushness Scopechief 1.5X-4.5X scope on it, I went to the range and fired ten rounds of Remington 175-grain factory 7X57mm ammo in it just to get some cases to reload. Imagine my total shock when I went downrange and discovered that the damn thing had put all ten shots into a 1" circle @ 100 yards! After a little load development, this rifle would consistently put the first three rounds in one ragged hole, and the next seven shots into a little less than an inch all day!!

Now, in this day and age, I don't know if this is exceptional accuracy or not, but it sure impressed me!! (My son took this rifle deer hunting once, and I haven't seen it since!!!)

The Ruger 77 is the best of the new market guns IMO at least in the Safari grade...I have some commets on the posts above:

1. Some factory guns shoot and some don't, regardless of make, it is a crapshoot...Rugers early barrels were not always good, that has changed.

2. the recoil lug bedding system is the best ever for a factory gun as it pulls the lug into the wood..It can be glassed and it needs no piller bedding...A proper glass job is argueably as good as Piller Bedding IMO and a lot of other smiths..The exception may or may not be benchrest..In therory it should be, in tests I see no difference.

3. The paddle stock is ugly, so is any plastic stock. It is very tough and stable however.

4. The M-70 safty was by consumer demand as it is the most popular safty today by a long shot..It is a little small but I have no problem at all with it...If it is a problem for you in actual use then I suspect you cannot chew gum and walk at the same time It would be easy to fix with a tig welder.

5. On the Safari grade I do not know where you can buy a rifle with an intregal quarter rib for that price, the barrel itself would cost you the price of the gun...the barrel band front sight is a winner.

6. The stock design was designed by Leonard Brownell and is true American Classic, hard to beat that...

7. It is a true control feed and if yours is not working properly, you need to have it tuned or replaced...

8. I don't know of a decent factory trigger on any factory gun these days, they all are very heavy to prevent the onslaught of law suits that are plagueing the factories...The Ruger can be made to work just fine or replaced...

9. As to the RSI, of course it is loud any carbine is loud because it has a short barrel. The 270 is a very intense round and it is betrter suited to the 308 IMO..It is a specialized tool..Most of them shoot very well, I'm sure some don't and that applies to all makes of rifles.

All in all I find the Ruger as good as any factory rifle on todays market, and it offers some things that the others do not have..

I have only one Ruger 77, my son gave it to me in 197?, it shoots like a bench rest rifle. I put a M-70 Safty on it, did a trigger job, re-shaped the stock and re-checkered it, made it into a control feed gun....all the stuff that is now available out of the box...

Most of my guns are custom Mausers and M-70's, so as you see I'm not a Ruger Rep. I just think they are a real value...All of the above is my opinion only and probably argueable...

I have a .270 mk with sights and It is a great rifle. I just wish the bolt was blued like the ones on the safari or express versions. The express rifle isn't in the 2003 catalog, only the Magnum. I hope if it is discontinued that it will be brought back someday. I've always wanted one.

I have a Ruger 77 MKII in .257 Roberts and love it. It will shoot consistently in 1.25". I've recommended it to a couple people and they have also had good luck with them. Granted some of them have rough actions, but look around and you will find one that is smooth. I would by another Ruger tomorrow if money permitted. I think they are the best deal for the buck. I can get them cheaper that Savage and Tikka's where I live!

Hudge

77s are built like tanks and are great value for the money. I tend to prefer the Model 70 but it doesn't come in .280 any more so I just got a stainless 77. Here are critiques from a Ruger-liker:

1. The new design synthetic stock has too much drop. I've ordered a Boyd's JRS laminate replacement.

2. The 3-position safety points straight to the rear, which makes it a little harder to get moving with my thumb.

3. The trigger needs to be replaced.

4. Mine shoots OK for a factory rifle. May do better when properly bedded in a stiffer stock.

Isn't it great when someone chimes in and tells you how their $900 rifle has a better trigger than your $450 rifle! a decent smith can tune up a Ruger trigger for around $40. Or just buy a Timney replacement. Now you have enough left over for a Leupold Vari-X III.... Oh yeah. You don't have to spend $40-$100 on rings either (Like Sako or Tikka) BECAUSE THEY COME WITH THE GUN!!!! Ruger's customer service is first rate as well...
Don't get me wrong. I like my Sako's. But they cost twice as much and to be completely fair...they aren't twice the rifle...
I'll also say that Ruger's Safari Magnum is a hands down better overall rifle than a Sako safri Grade for lots of the reasons that Atkinson outlined above. But having owned both guns in Safari configuration the Ruger has a better stock, better fit and finish and is true CRF while the Sako's are push feed. (Unless you are talking about Sako's new $10,000 Safari Rifle...then why would you buy that when so many fine custom Mauser's are available in that price range.)
While I personally favor the Winchester M70 bolt rifle over a Remington or a Ruger. One cannot argue the merits of the Ruger design, or performance in that price range. My first centerfire Rifle back in 1977 was Ruger M77 (tang safety) in .270 and it has a very acceptable stock trigger and will shoot 10 Nosler 130 grain Ballistic Tips into just under an inch all day long. My Ruger Safari Magnum in 375 H&H will put 3 Nosler 300 grain Partitions into 1.25" at 100 yards with iron sights and also came with a very crisp trigger that breaks ~4#. Its going to Africa with me.
Keep buying those Rugers...It helps the stock price!

[ 02-11-2003, 14:57: Message edited by: Kentucky Nimrod ]

KSDuckhunter,

I see your edge is present on all forums not just over on the politics board! I sure hope we never have to argue about Big 12 football!

Peace to you, too.......

I have a Ruger MKII I got in 2000. It shoots some factory ammo to 1.75" and handloads to about 1.5". I did free float the barrel and it just changed it's preferences a little, but no real change. The best addition was a Timney trigger and a Leupold scope.

My only complaint is the inside finnish of the barrel. It has very shallow sprial rings between the lands. They seem to have a little impact on accuracy and fouling, though my Savage barrel looks smoother but fouls worse (the Savage is a bit more accurate and less picky on loads though it's a .243 vs a .30-06 in the Ruger).

I like the Ruger for a hunting rifle. It feeds everyting, it's rugged, it's accurate enough and it's pretty easy to carry.

I have the boat paddle stock, don't like the looks, but it works and the only time the recoil is bothersome is off the bench, and then I can use countermeasures.

You can also add Steyr to the list of rifles with a good factory trigger. The newest Savage rifles also have a much better trigger that adjusts reliably to 1 1/2# (the accutrigger).

I guess what I don't like the M77 is the three in a row I had that were duds. 2 were older models a .270 Win, 7mm RM, and a newer "boat paddle" stocked .223 Remington. It didn't seem to matter what I did - they just wouldn't shoot. Ruger would do absolutely nothing to make them any better either. I sold all three and replaced them with M70's and Savage 116s. Problem solved.

For several years, I used to shoot every weekend at a public range. I saw (and shot) dozens of M77's that wouldn't shoot worth the hoot. Yes, all companies turn out dogs - it just seems that Ruger turned out more than their share.

I have 3 of them. A .223 (shoots sub MOA factory), and 25.06 and a 243 each shooting around 1-1.5" factory. All three are stainless with the paddle stock. I really like the paddle stock, i actually prefer it over the new style.

My 243 is the only one that does not CRF everytime like my 223, and 25-06, but i can live with it. Slap a Timney in it and it will shoot all day long.

I must be the first here that hates the factory rings. Complete garbage. I have burris rings on 2 of them, and went with the burris/weaver adaptor on my latest and it works great.

I have three of the tang-safety M77's, two MK-II's. Three are very accurate. The heavy barrelled 22-250 prairie dog rifle shoots like a heavy barrelled rifle should. My 30-06 is good for 1/2" three-shot groups at 100 yards, 5/8" to 3/4" for five shots at that range, with Hornady 150 SP or 165 SST's. My 338WM is the most accurate game rifle I own. Seat the bullet just off the lands, choose the right powder and bullet combination, and three shots overlap, five land in about 1/2", ten in around an even inch at 100 yards. My sporter weight 22-250 and my 257 Roberts aren't nearly so good. These are 1" rifles at best, closer to 1 1/2" as the barrel heats up. The light 22-250 even required a Timney trigger to make it possible to shoot at all accurately.
Why so many Rugers? Their stock fits my face/shoulder build better than anything else. The scope falls before my eye like the rib on a shotgun that fits.

Ya know... I took a shot at a cougar with mine this year (.338 stainless synthetic), and though the trigger is still factory (badly need to get that worked on) I never noticed it... or the recoil either

[ 02-13-2003, 04:20: Message edited by: Gutshot ]

I have a Ruger Mark II stainless, laminate stocked, left handed 7mmRemMag. I love the looks and the stock construction, but it is driving me crazy trying to get it to shoot consistent groups.
I've tried 11 different bullets by 4 makers, six different powders (3 makers) and it will not group anything better than 1.25" @ 100 yards. With loads it doesn't like it prints one bullet dead center and the second and third bullets touching each other 2.5" below it and 1 inch right. With loads that it does like, it prints the first bullet dead center and the second and third bullets touching each other an inch low and a little right. After three shots, the barrel is noticeably hot and it starts shooting patterns, not groups. I've free floated the barrel and then tried different forearm pressures, and it shoots weird combinations. The only constant is, that it will not put the first bullet anywhere near the next two. But, other than that I really like it. LOL

I've got two Ruger 77 Mk IIs. A 223 VT, that has had virtually nothing done to it (the trigger has had the two stage effect removed). It shoots .5 moa with many loads, and sub moa with all. Must get it pillar bedded one day, but don't want to ruin a good thing...

The other started life as a 243 RBZ. I loved the look and feel, but just couldn't get it to shoot as well as I wanted. The barrel was replaced, the trigger modified, and it was pillar bedded. It now shoots far better than I can, averaging around .4 moa with the 65 Vmax. I didn't try all that hard to get it to work with its original barrel, as I had a heavier one available, and had a use in mind for the Ruger barrel. That barrel is now a 6*47, and resides on a Sako, where it happily shoots sub moa.

A gunsmith friend, having been told (many times) that Ruger barrels were junk, fitted one to a benchrest worked Remington action. Just this last weekend, it shot a .1 group (in the hands of someone who is really good).