Ok, everyone seems to think Ruger bolt actions are a POS. What I would like to know are the objective reasons why, not just "I don't like Rugers".

Is the metallurgy poor?
Is the design weak?
Is the centerline of the action and the centerline of the barrel threads out of alignment?
Do they fail?
Is it because it is not a round action and the gunsmiths can't easily chuck it up in a lathe?
Is that you can't get cartridges to feed?
Is is that you don't like the integral scope bases?

Just what physically is wrong with them? I am not talking about the barrels, I know what is wrong with them. Just the action.

I think it has to do with the fact that by using the casting method and making them sturdy Ruger has come up with guns that without very much are just plain great working tools and don't lend themselves to much controversy in discussion.

Red

Nothing is wrong with Rugers...other than you can buy a Tikka T3 for the same money and get more accuracy

Of course that can also be said about Remingtons and Winchesters.

I think the reason why people just don't like Rugers is the same reason every redneck in the south holds Remingtons to high regard. They're just ignorant.

quote:

I am not talking about the barrels, I know what is wrong with them

Are you talking about actions or complete rifles? On complete rifles you answered one of the two big drawbacks, second is the triggers.

If I need to spend dollars to get a rebarrel done, might as well be on an action I like.

THe accuracy guys probably have some other technical reasons, but I assume your talking hunting rifles not benchrest ( has a Ruger ever won a match?) and will keep this out of the benchrest world.

There old paddle stocks sure didn't help either.

In truth I think the newer Rugers are better, no big fixes but there barrels are better, the dumped the canoe paddle stocks, they have CRF now, and aftermarket triggers are available.

THe Ruger Safari, the number 1's and the RSI are pretty decent guns.

Why a lot of people are permanently PO'd @ Ruger is over their politics.

Edit: I also assumed your not talking about some of their semi auto POS rifles, and talking about the 77 Series.

In my case it was having to deal with blithering idiots in the service deparment. I had an early RSM .416 Rigby, first year of production, that wouldn't feed. I called Ruger and the first thing the "technical help" (and that is a term I use with great reluctance) said the problem was I was using an after market magazine! After we got past that idiocy, she asked if there was any modification to the gun. I had put a ebony forend tip on it and a better recoil pad. She then informed me that those modifications were most likely the cause of the feeding problem. I seriously thought I was on Candid Camera or something. She said to send it back, but they would have to replace the stock first before they could do any other work. At that time that was a $485 charge...Needless to say I found a gunsmith to do the work for me. If you get a gun that works from Ruger you are doing good, if not, may you be provided with divine help.

Being Investment Cast has always stopped them being made as high end guns eiter bybRuger or other gunsmiths. As far as I am aware the investment cast is only an image problem.

They are a prick of thing to bed and when compared to their diret competitions, that is M70 and Rem 700, they have a tiny recoil lug and the psoition of the front screw does not give them as a good a bedding configuration.

They have in the past (don't about know about now) used weak firing spring in springs so they they seemed nice to work in the gun shop. In other words the cocking cams can be rough but the weak firing pin spring disguises this.

Mike

Ya know, Bill Ruger was a sly old fella. I happen to know that when he and the partner started the company they were looking way past their little .22 auto pistol. Yep, all the way past the Reagan Years too. Bill said, 'Next I'm going to build me a rifle that will be inexpensive, that will shoot adequately for big game, and be reliable. The important thing is I got an agreement with a couple of those benchrest guys ya see. I won't build something that can be worked over into a BR gun, and they won't build something that can be hacked into a hunting rifle. We'll be under $300 to start, they'll be over $2000. All we have to do is put a flat on the bottom of the action to solve 90% of the issues related to bedding. Ya think any of those guys will copy that?"

What Dago Red said. I love my Rugers. My Ruger RSM in 458 Lott is the finest rifle I own, and that pool includes Sako, Weatherby, Remington, etc.
Best, Starcharvski.

If only Ruger would do away with that god awful angled front guard screw on their 77s & change it to a 90 degree angle. You ever wonder why you never see serius competitors shooting Ruger 77s at matches. I can't count the number of 77s that after pulling the barrels found the receiver walls to be substantialy thicker on one side of the receiver ring than the other.
All other Ruger products i have no problem with.

I like the Ruger bedding system , as I have not yet had one I couldn't get to shoot without fooling with bedding work . The angled front screw allows you to "tune" the existing bedding . My most recent purchase is a 77 V/T model , and it is easily a 1/2 MOA rifle without any work whatsoever .

I do think the stainless actions seem to cast a bit rougher than the blued steel .....

The Only Ruger bolt gun I have, is a model 77MK 2 RL.
That is a ultra light 20 inch barrel with a ceramic for tip, chamberd for the .257 Roberts. This rifle has never seen a factory round of ammo. From the box it was no better than 2.5 inches from a bench rest. I put a 71 Dollar timney trigger in her,( Easy job with a dremmel tool) Much better trigger but did not improve accuracy. had a gunsmith glass bed the lug area and free floated the barrel, and it got much better. With most loads it shoots about 1.5 inches, (not great but this rifle is just a tiny little thing and carries like a M1 carbine.
I do have one load that shoots around MOA. the 100 grain barnes tripple shock with H-414, gives me very good groups and a suprising 3140 FPS. in short if you like the way a ruger looks and feels I say get one. Do somthing about the trigger and be ready to tinker a little and you will probably end up with an excelent hunting rifle. I know of a store with a 300 win mag for 430.00. I am tempted, another 71 dollars and an hours labor and she would be ready to go. But one other small problem ,the recoil pad ruger uses is not much softer than the wood. In a hard kicker some might want to replace it...tj3006

quote:

Originally posted by Old Elk Hunter:
Ok, everyone seems to think Ruger bolt actions are a POS.

BULL!!

quote:

Originally posted by Old Elk Hunter:
Ok, everyone seems to think Ruger bolt actions are a POS. What I would like to know are the objective reasons why, not just "I don't like Rugers".

Is the metallurgy poor?
Is the design weak?
Is the centerline of the action and the centerline of the barrel threads out of alignment?
Do they fail?
Is it because it is not a round action and the gunsmiths can't easily chuck it up in a lathe?
Is that you can't get cartridges to feed?
Is is that you don't like the integral scope bases?

Just what physically is wrong with them? I am not talking about the barrels, I know what is wrong with them. Just the action.

The new ones don't eject reliably if you work the bolt really fast. This is because the ejector is a spring loaded thing and the spring is too slow. The old Mauser fixed ejector is the way to go.

4" groups on the two I owned was the big turn off for me.

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by Fumbler:

I think the reason why people just don't like Rugers is the same reason every redneck in the south holds Remingtons to high regard. They're just ignorant.

I am not qualified to discuss the "whys" I just have had problems getting my Ultralight in 257 Roberts to shoot well. 2 inches at 100 is about the best it has done repeatably so far.
Thomas Jones - how about sharing some of your load data with me? I am currently trying 115gr TSX's in my gun, and may have found something, which I will be happy to share with you once I confirm it.
Peter.

I'm a huge Ruger fan I'll say that first off... It's not much of a secret around here I don't think I don't really have anything against any of the others, it's just that I like their dependability and looks - yes even that boatpaddle stock!

I've never had any significant problems with Ruger rifles. In fact nearly all my sporting rifles are M77's or M77/MkII's nowadays (throw in a #1 too).

I'm not a target shooter, so for me Rugers are very rugged and reliable hunting rifles. My guns are tools, precision tools that serve a purpose for me and mainly have to work reliably most of all. If I can get 1" to 2" groups at 100 yards that's all I need for my purposes. Their RSM and the Tropical #1 in particular I've been very impressed with and find them to be the finest rifles I've personally ever owned.

I know I've heard of some individual lemons from other posters, so maybe I've been lucky, but in my experience I'm to the point where if I buy a bolt rifle it's a Ruger - period. They work and they're rugged as hell.


500grains,

I've heard of that ejection problem in some of the M77/MkII's... I'd say that's not a big obstacle, but it obviously needs to be addressed and corrected before going afield with it. Polishing the channel the ejector rides in and installing a stiffer spring will fix that. All rifles need to be thoroughly gone through and performance tested to work out the bugs before you take them out to hunt. I've even heard of expensive custom rifles being delivered with bugs that had to be worked out - so a factory rifle will surely need at least some tinkering to get it just right.

If you don’t like Ruger, Remington, Winchester or some other brand the solution is quite simple...don’t buy one!

I had a horrible customer service dispute with Ruger back in 1998. They admitted in writing the barrel steel in the first run of P-95 pistols may be defective. They also refused to fix the gun dispite their admission. This saga took over a year and a half. Needeless to say I won't ever get another Ruger.

ZM

77/22 Hornet- Most dissapointing rifle I've ever owned, 3-6" groups.

#1 Sporter 30-06- Barrel was rough, I mean like it had been rifled with a hand filed button.

77R .270 Win.- 3" groups at best after bedding, Timney trigger and other work.

Red Label 20 ga.- Point of impact was off for each barrel by a foot either way and they'd change even more with each choke tube.

I'm turned off Ruger for life, never buy another one.

I wouldn't take the problem of not ejecting when the bolt is worked rapidly as a common problem. I own three, 7x57 through an RSM in .416 Rigby, if anyone can work mine fast enough to make it fail to eject, they must be a lot faster than I am. They make a great everyday hunting gun. I wouldn't choose one to make a high dollar custom from either.

The only Rugers I like are my .41 Blackhawk because I don't expect much from it and my 10/22 which has an Accuflite barrel, Hogue stock, and Jewel trigger. I guess it's not really a Ruger after all?

I bought my daughter a Ruger M77KFRP in .280 Rem. last summer. The rifle shoots very good groups- .635" @ 100 yds. However, the throat is SHORT. It won't digest rounds that are built to the normal COAL. I am seating 154 gr. Hornady Spire Points below the cannelure so they will chamber.

Personally, I don't enjoy the idea of a cast receiver, but I have never seen one fly apart. Just a personal preference, I suppose.

I bought a ruger 77 stainless with a laminated stock in 30-06 very cheap second hand. It looked like it had not been used much. The only thing I see is that the full safety position doesn't fully lock down the bolt, but the safety is still on. It passes the drop test with the safety off. The trigger is not bad. All my other rifles are either Browning BLR's, winchester model 70's or marlin lever actions with the exception of a Ruger model 1 45/70.
The 77 was just too cheap for me to turn it down. I put an old steel tube weaver 4x scope on it and got some wallmart 30-06 150 grain ammo and sighted it in. When I tried a 3 shot group it was about 1.2 inches at 100 yards. Within a week I killed a 150 pound hog with it.
I haven't used it lately as I try to exercise all my rifles on hog elimination during the off season. However I got some 180 grain walmart ammo and re-sigheted it in the last time I went to the range, and the best three shot group was .997 center to center. I measured this one with the calipers. I think with a good 3x9 it could do better. It's bottom metal is all stainless steel, and it is a good tool. Much better than that Remington 710 pos.

I will keep my winchesters, as I have replaced all the trigger bows with Williams steel one's, and I will keep my all steel receiver BLR's.

Old Elk Hunter,

As for your question #3 you are going to be hard pressed to find ANY factory action, from ANY manufacturer, that will have the receiver threads in true alignment and squared with the centerline of the bolt raceway. The same will be true for receiver lugs, bolt faces and bolt locking lugs.

Some are closer than others, even within the same brand, but since factory actions are machined prior to heat treating things can end up cockeyed to varying degrees.

Within normal hunting ranges very few people are going to be able to tell the difference anyway.

My first M77 was a .243...the stock warped....I fixed it....and it warped again and I fixed it again...the third time I sold it.

My second M77 a 7MM Mag...the ammo in the magazine would not feed up to allow the bolt to catch the next round and feed to the chamber. It would feed rounds up only if I slammed the bolt back hard to jar the rounds up.....I complained to Ruger and they sent me a new box magazine.....It didn't do squat for me!!!


My third M77 was a .338 Mag and the bolt lock didn't work. The damn bolt opened on my while on the sling over my back.....and it was the fault of the rifle.....

Then the #1 SS varmint rifle.....it wouldn't group better than 3" at 100 yards and after returning it to Ruger several times they informed me that 1.5" at 50 yards is their standard of accuracy on a #1.

Now.....WOULD YOU BUY ANOTHER F^%$#*& RUGER AFTER THAT??

There's rock solid function/quality issues that cause this house to be void of Rugers, (except a couple SAA revolvers) Weatherbys and Savages.
Even worse is the FIE imports from Florida.....what a joke!!! Don't get me started on Charles Daly now!!!!

I've yet to buy a lemmon from Winchester, Remington, Sako, Howa, Marlin, or Mossberg.

At this time almost all of my centerfire rifles are Winchester M-70 and a few Mausers.

I have found Rugers to be the least accurate rifles of the big three manufacturers.

I think the angled screw thing was the biggest marketing gimmick of all time - if your bedding isn't perfect, you are going to bend the action. If it was so great, it would have long ago been copied by others.

I do love my Ruger Red Label.

I fail to see how the angled front screw is a marketing gimmick . I figure the average rifle buyer of the big three would not even look at that feature and would not have a clue what sort of bedding arrangement the rifle has .

In my safe are 3 M77's,3 M700's, 2 M70's, and 2 Savages(M99 and M10FP). All are under 30 cal. Of the bunch, only one 700 will beat two of the three Rugers, and that takes a good caliper to measure. All of these rifles have been tinkered with as that is my nature and hobby. I have had less trouble getting good groups from the Ruger sporters than any of the others. The worst of the three is the standard sporter in .257 Roberts. It only goes around 3/4". As for barrels, one of the 700's has a well known match grade barrel and still takes a backseat to two of the factory Rugers, one of them built in 1975. Luck of the draw I guess. Maybe I better not buy any more Rugers, averages may catch up with me.

I've had good luck with the Rugers I've owned in the past except for one.

One friend has a .270 and one has a 25-06. Both are accurate rifles. These are the M77. I've shot 1" moa or so , with both with factory ammo.

I bought a new #1 Varmint rifle in 25-06...it was absolutely the worst shooting rifle I have ever owned bar none. Ruger wouldn't fix it....

I had a 30-06 #1B that was a consistent 1"-11/4" moa gun. Real nice rifle good velocities with the 26" barrel.

416. Rigby magnum rifle...clover leaf groups with factory and handloads, just an awesome rifle for the money.

I don't feel they are all bad. I kinda like this one.
It has a Ruger barrel on it too. Shoots right well.

I've always liked Rugers, they don't have any more problems that any other factory rifles have.

As to the Safari, if you purchased a custome rifle with an integral quarter rib like the Ruger the barrel alone would cost you $2500 to $3000. I'd say that alone makes the Sarari a pretty darn good deal at about $1100. for the complete rifle, then add barrel band swivel and barrel band front sight and a model 70 type safety of sorts, plus some nice wood and the best factory designed stock in factory history..

SD, I'm also scratching my head over the "marketing gimmick" comment... unlike Remington's silly "three rings of steel", it's never mentioned in any ad related to the rifle so how does that translate to "marketing gimmick?"

Bending the action? That has more to do with the quality of the stock inletting. I once had a Rem Model 7 that, when the front and rear action screws were tightened, would bind the bolt badly... talk about "bending the action!"

The Ruger 77 is a solid, "workman-like" hunting rifle. It's a bit "clubby" and rough, but I think it's a far more solid hunting action than the renowned Dale Ernhardt/M700...

Wow - I wasn't expecting this much feedback. I don't have anything against Rugers in general. I like the four old M77's I've got and I wouldn't hesitate to buy another. I have had many M77's over the years and the main gripe I had was the low quality of the chambering work done by the factory. I kept hearing that they were bad because they were cast yet the same people would say the M70 is great even though
it is cast also. There are very few bolt actions that are NOT cast currently. I was just curious why so many people were quick to bad-mouth Ruger bolt actions. I have worked on dozens of M77's for friends to improve their accuracy. The primary problem I have seen
is with wood that warps against the barrel and poor bedding. I agree that bedding a Ruger M77 takes a bit more care than a Remington
M700, but it can be done well. I do routinely open up the barrel chanels to keep the wood away from the barrel. I also seal the inside
of the stocks. I own Rugers, Win M70's, Remington 700's, Remington 600's, M98 Mausers, etc. They all have their quirks. I am kind of
glad that so many people don't like Ruger M77's - it keeps the price of used ones down. Thanks for all your responses.

When thinking about Ruger's I remember things like the first run's of 220 Swift ,Ruger#1's and their rings.First two were great -watch out for the rings.
I never had more problems with Rugers.

Try IMR-4350 with 115 Noslers in your .257 Roberts.
Glenn

I, for one, do NOT think that the Ruger M77-MK II are a bad rifle at all -- quite the opposite. I think it's an extremely rugged, reliable rifle that represents an extremely good buy on today's market. They generally feed very well, and the scope mounting system is excellent. I would much rather have a Ruger than most other factory rifles, and I've always said that if you own an accurate Ruger, you own a good gun.

Some Rugers don't shoot all that well out of the box, but bedding, loads, and trigger work helps many of them live up to their potential -- the same stuff you'll have to do to many factory rifles.

I've know guys who have gone so far as to buy half a dozen Rugers in a couple of calibers (like 280 Rem. & 338 Win.), shoot them all, keep the ones that show the best potential, then sell the others at a gunshow. I know a guy who did just that more than twenty years ago, and he still hunts with that same pair of Rugers every year to this day. No problems, either........

AD

Old Elk Hunter,

One of the first observations I made when I originally came to this web site was the undeniable fact that if most people on here owned Baskins Robbins there would only be one flavor of ice cream on the menu!

I think its important to remember that a good hunting rifle possesses many traits. Accuracy, while important, must also be coupled with dependability and ruggedness. In those areas, the Ruger excells. I like the way the Ruger is constructed, i.e., with a few robustly proportioned steel parts.

My first high-powered rifle was an A-Bolt .270 purchased in 1994. I was always troubled by the intricate trigger mechanism, the fabricated multi-component bolt, and fact that many critical parts are made of aluminum. Many have good things to say about the A-Bolt's ability to endure the rigors of the field, so my fears are probably unfounded.

I like the Ruger 77 because when stripped down, it has few parts that can break, and the parts which are there are heavily proportioned, no doubt as a result of the Ruger's use of investment casting. I also like the fact that all I need is a nail to strip the bolt, not a vise like was required with the A-Bolt.

Acceptable hunting accuracy, rugged dependability, reasonable price. This the Ruger has, and that is enough for me.

Eric, that's a good anaylysis. The Ruger is much more rugged and better-built than the A-Bolt. Good rifles are indeed much more than accurate out of the box and off the bench, but it seems a lot of guys don't know how to evaluate them from any other perspective.

Personally, I'll take a Ruger over an A-Bolt any day of the week..........

AD

Rick,

And just what is wrong with pistachio?