I own four of the Tang safety 77's. I have had nothing but success with them over the years. When the Mark II took over, I lost my interest in the Ruger rifle. I greatly liked the safety on the tang. My opinion is that if I want a model 70 type rifle, I'll buy a Model 70. I have not purchased a Ruger rifle from the date of the changeover. As far as the Rugers accuracy-- I must have all good ones because they all shoot to 1" or less with carefully assembled handloads.

Well maybe the line between cheap and expensive is blured in my eye. I spead about $800 for a Ruger rifle and about $500 for a scope whether it be a Leupold or Burris. I thought a $1300 rig should be reliable enough.

I do not live in the extremes of Alaska but I have been there to know what weather they get. I personally live in Northern Alberta, Canada and my tang safety Rugers work when it is -40F chasing coyotes or when it rains chasing spring bears. They just work for me and I have never been able to understand the reason so many believe they are "junk". No they are not a Sako, no they are not a Dakota or something else so fancy that the average man cannot enjoy all year around.

I am that average man and they work for me period.

Greg

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:
I own four of the Tang safety 77's. I have had nothing but success with them over the years. When the Mark II took over, I lost my interest in the Ruger rifle. I greatly liked the safety on the tang. My opinion is that if I want a model 70 type rifle, I'll buy a Model 70. I have not purchased a Ruger rifle from the date of the changeover. As far as the Rugers accuracy-- I must have all good ones because they all shoot to 1" or less with carefully assembled handloads.

Ahh,

it seems to me the tang saftey Ruger's are so far infront of the newer ones it wouldn't be fair to compare them....almost a different brand of rifle.

I am also adamant that most of Rugers problems are with there stainless synthetic guns.

I don't recall seeing a complaint about a blued/walnut Ruger only the ss ones (I am in that camp as well) !!

quote:

Originally posted by albertacoyote:
Well maybe the line between cheap and expensive is blured in my eye. I spead about $800 for a Ruger rifle and about $500 for a scope whether it be a Leupold or Burris. I thought a $1300 rig should be reliable enough.

I do not live in the extremes of Alaska but I have been there to know what weather they get. I personally live in Northern Alberta, Canada and my tang safety Rugers work when it is -40F chasing coyotes or when it rains chasing spring bears. They just work for me and I have never been able to understand the reason so many believe they are "junk". No they are not a Sako, no they are not a Dakota or something else so fancy that the average man cannot enjoy all year around.

I am that average man and they work for me period.

Greg

Greg,

What??????? You mean the coyotes and bears don’t just sit and laugh at you because you use a Ruger???

Your post is exactly what I have been trying to say on here. Ruger makes very good, usable rifles that for some reason seem to sell quite well and take game just like all the other makes do.

I have quit counting the threads on this site where guys have asked for assistance with problems they are having with just about every brand of rifle you can think of...and a few I’d never even heard of before. And an awful lot of the problems were with brand new rifles.

I‘ve been shooting Remington 700’s for about 40 years or so, and for some bizarre reason I have yet to have the bolt handle come off of any of them...I have never broken an extractor, or had the extractor fail to do its job...I have never had rounds fall out or fail to chamber because of the push feed feature...and I have never had the trigger or the safety malfunction either. All of those things, according to some, are “common†traits with the 700. I guess I have only purchased “uncommon†ones over the years...or maybe I‘m just blessed with incredible good luck.

You’re a better man than I since the only thing I would be chasing at 40 below is the cocktail waitress in the lodge with the great big fire place!

Ruger's, rifle, shotgun or handgun have always had a simple "elegance" about them ( I am, ugh, er was a mechanical engineer until the Management role took over). I have a few New Model and numerous Old Model Blackhawks, tang 77's (a 35 Whelen my personal favorite, an Ultralight 250 Savage being 15 year old son #1's favorite), Mark II 77's (a 243 Win Mannlicher RSI being 13 year old son #2's favorite), a M77-22 22 Hornet (eing 6 year old son #3's favorite) and a 1976 #1 45-70 that is both drop dead gorgeous and accurate as all get out. All are wonderful pieces. If the dreadful "you can only own one" ever landed, it would be a M77 Mark II 338 Win Mag and a New Model Blackhawk 45 Colt. With some minor tweaking I'd be set for my time left here...

When I read a post like this I have to have a grain of salt to throw into the stew and wonder just how much is really 'problem' and just how much is 'personal opinion?' I would not buy a Ruger with the tang safety because I did not like it - period. My choice, no one else. I own an array of Rugers at the moment and have owned a lot more over the years. At present, a 10-22, a 77-II in 7x57, a Blackhawk in 45LC, a No1 in 45/70,etc Suffice to say, all of them shoot - or they would no longer reside in my safe.
As to problems, I had a long barreled Super Blackhawk in 45LC that would not shoot worth a hoot plus two chambers in the cylinder would not release the empties. I called Ruger and got a dingbat on the phone - "Do you shoot reloads, etc." and "well, that is your problem!" After asking to speak to a supervisor who offered a "free box and send it in, we'll check it over." I mailed it off and when it came back it was marked as "Checked - found serviceable" or words to that effect - period. I examined it closely and they had replaced the cylinder and the barrel. How can you argue with a company that will do that?
As to the 'us vs them' views expressed I see this as exactly the same as 'Ford vs Chevy' 'Remington vs Winchanger', etc. ‘My dad can lick your Dad’ if you get my drift.
I might add the 'best' rifle I probably ever owned was a Mauser actioned sporter built in Germany between the wars. This little rifle would probably cost a minimum of $7-8000 to have built today - quarter rib barrel with popup leaf, claw-mount scope, recessed sling swivels, beautiful full Mannlicher style stock with skeleton butt plate, trap for spare front sight blade, and on and on. Only problem, the darn thing was good for about 5-6†at fifty yard – max. Worst shooting 7x57 I ever had in my hands, period. Where do you start and what do you do with a rifle that cost this much? I’ll confess to finding a new home and I’m sure some new owner is proud of this absolutely stunning rifle – provided he doesn’t wish to shoot it!
Having said this, please don’t deduce from my statement that I don’t like Mauser actions. I think they are the best. But I also think one should be truthful. Someone mentioned the CZ rifles and I cannot argue with how they shoot. I had the hots for one in 7x57 and was able to look at several. Impressive factory targets with each of them – and the stocks looked like they were made out of pawpaw wood! Anyone that can truthfully say they have or have even seen a CZ with a factory stock that looks like the one in the ads? I have not.
To sum all of this up, I have a lot of rifles, and I am certainly not out to impress anyone. And out of all the various and sundry ones I own, if I were forced to choose one or two bolt rifles from amongst the Remingtons, Mausers, Colt, Sako, Ruger, Springfield, Enfield, etc. – I would be hard pressed to not pick the Ruger 77-II in 7x57 or an old Remington 721 in 30-06. Not really pretty, not very expensive – but they both shoot very well – and I would bet my life on either one of them. What more could you ask for?

My first centerfire rifle, when I was about 20, was a Ruger M77 in .243. The only way I could afford to shoot it was to handload, which I did on my kitchen table with a $10 Lee loader, remember those?

I put a 3-9x Bushnell Scopechief on it and it would shoot my handloads (built for economy NOT performance) into dime sized three shot groups.

Being young and dumb, and assuming that all rifles shot like that, I soon traded it.

Since then I've had several M77s and M77MKII's. I've had three of the mannlicher stocked Internationals, these were not great range guns, probably due to the stock, but they are fantastic hunting guns.

My least favorite was a .338 Win Mag stainless in the old style skeleton stock, that stock was and is the biggest POS ever to come on a hard kicking rifle. The rifle shot around MOA, but I couldn't stand it.

My favorite was a LE version of the MKII Varminter, this had matte blue metalwork and a green/black laminated stock. At first the barrel was too rough causing a LOT of copper fouling. A trip to Blackstar for bore polishing and cryo treatment turned it into a gun that would shoot in the threes dependably.

A layoff in early 2002 forced me to sell most of my guns to keep food on the table, and I'm just now getting back to where I can replace them.

Best doner action you can get these days

I have a few Ruger 77 tang safety Rugers and they seem to be OK rifles for the most part.
The .35 Whelem RS will shoot 1.0" with either the 200 gr. or 250 gr. Remington ammo and if you mix the two up, the group enlarges to 1.5". I took mine out of the factory stock which i felt was too pretty to scar up out in the hills and placed the barreled action into a Ramline synthetic I had laying around.
I also have another 77 that I rebarreled to the wildcat .375 Taylor. If I thought that the "cast" action was in any way weak, I would have used something else.
My three RSI's in .308, while not bench rest guns are accurate enough for what distance I'd shoot at a deer.
I've only had problems with two Rugers. One was a 7x57 that the EXTRACTOR would not extract. I bought the gun used and the previous owner had free floated the barrel. I get a letter back from Ruger telling me they will have to replace the stock before they will fix the extractor. The stock cost more than what I'd paid for the gun. When I called they said it was their policy to restore the gun to originality prior to any repairs. I told them to "Get f--ked and sent the gun back. I adapted an extractor from a Mauser bolt I had laying a round and fixed the gun myself.
The other Ruger I had problems with was a #1A in 7x57. It had one of those contracted out barrels and the throat was over two inches long. The gun was totally inaccurate. I had my gunsmith make a chamber cast and a written report which was sent along with the gun to Ruger. It took me seven months to get the gun back with a note saying the gun was accurate. They obviously replaced the barrel and yes, the gun was now quite accurate. So far, the score is 1 and 1.
My preference in Ruger rifles is for the Number Ones and other than that 7x57, all have been sufficiently accurate for hunting with some being surprising extremely accurate. (.300 Win. Mag. #1B shoots .375" groups with 200 gr. Nosler Partions, old style with the semi-round nose. Sure wish I could get some more of those.)
Paul B.

Red Label is great.
Redhawk & Blackhawks very good especially at the prices.
77/22 .22 Shoots better than me.
77/22 Hornet is POS. After Ruger replaced it I traded for a 700.

As a previous poster said, Bill Ruger made a decent hunting tool at a decent price.

Have an old Blackhawk,that I Love.Only Bitch
is that Ruger will not sell factory 30-Round
magazines to the Public,so I can feed my AC556.