Ruger revolvers have always been noted for their strength. Custom gunsmiths love them and build 500 Linebaughs and Lil Gun 44 Specials and everything else imaginable on them.

Why don't gunsmiths love Ruger 77 rifles equally ?

Have heard complaints that they're investment cast, but so are the revolver frames. Have heard that gunsmiths don't like them 'cause there is nothing to do to them. They're ready "as is".

Heard that gunshops don't like the rifles 'cause they can't sell a high margin set of scope rings and bases.

Had good luck with my Ruger rifles. Occasionally put a Shilen select match barrel on one. But, heck, do that with Remingtons and Sakos too.

Not arguing that the Ruger is superior to other rifles. Just saying they are in the same league as most current production rifles. Am not a Ruger loyalist. Been known to shoot Winchesters, Remingtons, Sakos, Brownings, Weatherbys, Savages, Mausers, etc.

What is the real beef behind frowning on Ruger 77 rifles ?

Hammer

Maybe the inablity to alter the action length easily to accomodate wildcats. I do recall that Mike at Gila Gunworks preferred the 77 for the 550 express and I think Jeffeosso was looking for a Mk II for another.
I don't get it myself as I own many and they all seem to handle well. I am picking up a 358 Norma today that I had put together from a donor.
Some items are just not sweet and cuddly like a levergun or pre-64 or even a Mauser workhorse.
Frank

Could be simply a lack of demand from customers, I guess. I wouldn't consider one as a basis for customizing. While it was phenomenally accurate, I didn't care for some non-functional things (feel of the safety, lack of bolt smoothness, and so forth) and sold it.

Jaywalker

I suspect you have listed the major reasons. Investment castings aren't as "elegant" as forged, machined steel perhaps, but they are plenty strong enough for a rifle action!

In addition, the rear-slanting guard screw setup on the Ruger complicates stock fitting, and a lot of "gunsmiths" prefer the tubular Remington-type receivers because they are relatively easy to inlet.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaywalker:
Could be simply a lack of demand from customers, I guess.
Jaywalker

Yup...thats my guess as well

quote:

Originally posted by Hammer:
Have heard that gunsmiths don't like them 'cause there is nothing to do to them. They're ready "as is".

That's a new one.

While they maybe okay from a strength and reliability standpoint, to me they feel cheap and unfinished. I guess that's good news for Gunsmiths. For me personally, the big turn off is their customer service department.

Of the cheaper guns on the market the Ruger is miles ahead. It has a fair percentage of Mauser 98 in it and looks the part right down to the bolt release. There mount set up is rock solid and they employ a 3 pos saftey similar to the M70 but lacking a little size, I figure a smith could easily make a bigger saftey lever to fix that issue. Ruger may have had some barrel issues but many say on this forum that those problems have been resolved.

For the money you pay for a Ruger and the features you get I think as a hunting rifle theyr represnet good value. They would have to be one of the most rugged rifles getting around and could be said there almost bomb proof.
Howa's weatherby Vanguards etc. are in the price bracket of a Ruger, I will take the Ruger over them any day of the week.

I like out of factory guns not custom etc.

Cz 550's
Ruger M77 Mark 11's
Winchester M70 classics (although I have not woned an M70 yet)

PC,

You're right - Rugers are Hell for stout. My MkII was really accurate - 6.5 Swede five-shot groups averaged well under an inch.

All was not perfect, though. As I mentioned, the bolt was not smooth. The trigger/hammer fall vibrated through the whole rifle, with a sound/feel like "thunk...nk...nk...nk." It vibrated like a tuning fork. The trigger needed fixing, of course, but the forend also needed a dab of epoxy to settle down the vibrations. It also suffered from primer back out, and I realized I had a headspace issue, and had to send it back to the factory. While they fixed the headspace, they also "fixed" my good trigger back to factory standard awful.

I swapped it for an M70 - it has some issues, but it's a better starting point, IMO.

Jaywalker

My gunsmith is partial to the Ruger action. He has many articles around his "improvement" he does to the #1 action. He makes the M77 sing in more ways than one. The main issue is the hamm fisted overtightening of that rearward facing screw under the magazine plate. If it is more than only wrist tight, it will throw off the harmonics. It need only be tight enough to keep it in the stock, NO MORE.

quote:

Originally posted by PC:

they employ a 3 pos saftey similar to the M70

I do like the 77 Mark II, but, alas!, the safety is not at all like the Model 70 safety.

The Model 70 safety lifts the firing pin from its pressure on the sear. But the Ruger safety only locks the trigger.

I regard the Model 70 safety as being the best ever invented for any rifle. In the middle position, the firing pin assembly of the Model 70 can be unscrewed easily from the bolt.

quote:

Originally posted by PC:
Of the cheaper guns on the market the Ruger is miles ahead.

I didn't say they weren't any good. What I said was "to me they feel cheap and unfinished".

quote:

Originally posted by PC:
It has a fair percentage of Mauser 98 in it and looks the part right down to the bolt release.

The only resemblance it has to a 98 is the extractor and bolt release. That "looking the part" thing might very well be the problem I have with it. At first glance, it looks great. But then so did my EX wife...

A certain amount of my shops annual income is derived from improving this breed so I can't "not" like it. It just dosn't have quite the feel other U.S. built rifles have. Which themselves sometimes don't quite have the feel a good European rifle has, and so on.

In short, whenever I handle a stock, out of the box Ruger, I get the same feeling I got the very first time I was handed the M-16. Anyway, if you have a Ruger and you like it, great!

quote:

Originally posted by LE270:

quote:

Originally posted by PC:

they employ a 3 pos saftey similar to the M70

I do like the 77 Mark II, but, alas!, the safety is not at all like the Model 70 safety.

The Model 70 safety lifts the firing pin from its pressure on the sear. But the Ruger safety only locks the trigger.

I regard the Model 70 safety as being the best ever invented for any rifle. In the middle position, the firing pin assembly of the Model 70 can be unscrewed easily from the bolt.

You can also unscrew the firing pin assembly from the bolt of a Ruger M77 MK-II. You can do that with bare hands, but it's much easier to accomplish by inserting a finish nail (or similar) through the little hole on the cocking mechanism, and then turn the pin assembly CCW. Leave the nail in place to ease installation.

Now, if you have strong fingers, you can easily disassemble and reassemble to bolt with bare hands. I don't have large and strong hands, but still can accomplish this.

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Martinez:
... I do recall that Mike at Gila Gunworks preferred the 77 for the 550 express and I think Jeffeosso was looking for a Mk II for another.
..Frank

Frank,
for the record, mike never built a single express.

PC,
the ruger MK III safety is actually a pretty damn clever one.. it stays with the action (that's where the trigger is) and on the 2 pos, locks for the trigger (operate bolt with safe) and third pos locks the bolt.. if you tear one down, you'll find you pretty much would have to shatter the trigger to get around such a positive safety.

the original 77's were 100% puch feed (don't even other trying to argue, one pic removes all doubt.. the bottom of the bolt looks like like a remington) with a huge extractor... worked fine.. in fact, to some folks, was a nice setup.

the mkII are EITHER...if can feed from the box just fine, it can push from the box ust fine, or you can just throw around ontop of the rails, and it will feed just fine.


good looking actions.. might look a touch "over polished" as compared to a surface ground mauser...

several clever ideas in them...

Now, some of the reluctence to work them over may be pure lack of experience of how the receivers are made, and how to work cast actions...

everyone that's ever touched cast steel with machine tools knows that "typical" castings get hot quick and warp... that's the fear of the rugers... not that they have worked one and it broke, but they "know" how easy it is to warp a casting....


On the stocks.. yeah, the stocks, especially the boat oars, look like they left the shop too early.. i dislike that the wood doesn't come up to the feed ramp on any that i have seen....


but that's easy enough to fix with the stock machine.

I current have a mkI 7rem, and a mkII RSM in 416...

In a nut shell, a ruger mkII swing safety is a FAR better gun to start projects on than a pushfeed model 70

jeffe

The Ruger 77 is a fine rifle. The truth is in actual lab testing, the cast action is maybe a wee bit stronger than forged, something to do with the grain structure of the metal. Ruger does fall down in the way they finish the actions. They're hand finished with little regard for straight lines and even sides. While it's not anything to hurt the functionality of the gun, it looks bad when laid side by side with an absolutely beautiful Mauser or Winchester M70. Ruger doesn't finish it's inside parts much better, and there's not much need to, but other companies do, so they should add a little spit and polish to the outside in my opinion. Ruger makes their own barrels, and despite what some spout, they are pretty darn good shooters for factory barrels. I would rank them near Savage in that respect. The wood on Rugers runs the gammut as do most manufacturers, so there's not a lot to complain about there.
Having said all that, I'm a huge Ruger fan, I love the 77, even though I feel the need to sort through several to get a good one finished and fitted right. I prefer Tikka T3's, and Savages to the Ruger, but it is in a solid third place. Now if Winchester would fit their triggers better, they would move up considerably on my list, but it's all personal, and any of them will work, it's just what you like.
Gunsmiths don't like Rugers for several reasons, but the biggest is the "snob factor" that Ruger just does not have. If you have a classic Winchester or Mauser, or even a well done Remington, it has a certain amount of "snob" to it, but a classic Ruger, well in a lot of peoples minds you ain't got much, not in mine though.
Ruger started with the "working man's rifle" appeal, and it stuck, much like Savage. Both are HIGHLY underratted rifles. Savage has done a fine job of addressing the shortcommings of their rifle, ie. finish, trigger, stocks, now if Ruger would follow suit, they'd sell like hot cakes, ...well I guess they do already, so Ruger doesn't feel the need. I mean, go to any gun shop in rural America and you'll likely see more Rugers than anything else.

I've posted this before here on AR but I thought I would add it to this thread.





Ruger M77 Mk II in .30-06 Springfield.
English walnut stock; shadow line cheek piece; cross bolt; flat point checkering; tung oil finish (I don't know the exact mixture/formula that was used). Pachmayr Decelerator pad. Steel magazine floor plate. Dakota inletted pistol grip cap and rear sling stud. Ruger barrel band sling stud. Rifle Basix trigger. Pillar & glass bedded. Jewelled bolt and extractor. Bolt lugs lapped. Extractor tuned. My gunsmith friend did all of the work. The rifle was completed earlier this year.

I know that a Ruger is a little unusual as a choice for a custom rifle. I just happen to like Ruger bolt actions. To each his own but, I think it turned out rather well.

-Bob F.

BF thats a great looking rifle !!

That's more like it! Nice job Bob. (sorry about the Rhyme)...

I own 4 of the tang safety models, 30-06, 300, 338 and 458. They are my first choice to hunt with, work first time every time and are reasonably accurate with good handloads. I much prefer the tang safety to any other design. I would not own a mark II with the wing safety. When the rifle was redesigned I quit buying them and started buying the model 70 or 700.

PC and malm,
Thanks for the kind words.
-Bob F.

Bob,
excellent looking rifle.. and i bet the action is as slick as can be

jeffe

I love old model Ruger 77s I have a bunch in 338 win mag.I bought the other ones incase I ever wore out my original one.I have shot my first 77 in 338 around 1900 times without ever having it jam or misfire.I have bought a few of the newer stainless Ruger markII in both 338 win mag and a pair in 264 win mag.All of my rifles will shoot groups of an inch or less.The stainless rifles are no way near as smooth as the older blued ruger 77s.I love the old safety the new ones suck for fast firing.I just shot a deer with my old Ruger 77 in 338.I had about two seconds to shoot and spin around 180 degrees and take off my glasses.I am able to shoot even running deer with this rifle.I love the medium heavy barrel on the 338s and the 264s.I can watch my shot and not have so much barrel rise as in Remington or winchester 338s with light barrels.My ruger 77 mark II 338 shot a 3/4" group at 200 yards with factory ammo.My worst factory gun ever is a Winchester Model 70 stainless with a boss.It rusted bebore I ever shot it.It jamed every shot till I replaced the entire magazine assembly.Its scope mpont screws were drilled crooked.My best friend bought the same gun when I did it did the same thing as mine.The ruger stainless riles have never rusted or jammed .They are tank tough and with the newer stock awesome guns.I love all my ruger rifles and will never buy another winchester.I hardly buy any remingtons any more either.I had to replace tons of parts in my 416 rem mags in remington 700s to make them feed.I have never seen a bad Ruger model 77 .I have seen plenty of bad Remington model 700s and lots of crappy winchester 70s.Winchester and Remington now cater to walmart to bring you the cheapest pieces of junk your money can buy.