Good Morning,

This is my first post on the forum after a good six months of enjoyable reading. My question is about the Ruger 77 Mk II. Why isn’t it mentioned when the basis for a fine custom rifle is discussed? What does the pre-64 Winchester M70 have over the Ruger? What does the Mauser 98 have over the Ruger?

Please understand that this post is written from the perspective of a guy who doesn’t hunt and whose shooting for the past 25 years has been 100% law enforcement. I have owned and/or carried four Ruger handguns during this time and have been completely satisfied with them. I’ve never owned a Ruger rifle.

What is it that other rifles do, or don’t do, that is better than the Ruger 77 Mk II? Thoughts?

Respectfully,
Harry C.

I think the Ruger action is as good as any personally but I wouldn't build a fine custom rifle on one due to resale value considerations.

Mikelravy, I think you might be onto something but the question remains why? Many years ago the top quality PPC revolvers were generally built around S&W Model 10's. As time progressed top quality PPC revolvers were made on Rugers, one of which I owned and enjoyed. Is it a matter of acceptance in the custom gun market or is there a drawback to the action? Respectfully, Harry

Harry, I think it's because of the cult status of the pre-64 Model 70's and the "greatest rifle of all time" the 98 Mauser. Also, people don't like the cast receiver of the Rugers for custom projects.

Now, if you could convert an older tang safety Ruger to CRF, I think you would be on to something!

Regards,

Pete

It may be cult status to a degree, but something created that cult status and that something was Mauser, or its knock off the pre 64 M-70...

I think the Ruger is a little "blocky" for a custom rifle, it does not have that sleekness or the lines of a Mauser and neither the Winchester or the Ruger have all of the attributes of a Mauser, many of which are not outwardly apparant to the uninformed, and books have been written on this subject...

Problem is the perfect rifle is a Mauser Mod.98 battle rifle, when we make any "refinements" we may actually not be doing justice to the perfect rifle..

The safty for instance is a perfect safty, BUT its not scope friendly, the trigger is perfect, but it too is a bit stout unless one learns to shoot with it, but when we make all these changes it better fits our sport hunter but at a trade off for reliability perhaps..but all this is getting off the subject a bit as the gunsmith finished Mauser is the finest rifle that can be had and apparantly the gunsmith trade agrees because all the high dollar rifles are on Mauser or Mauser knock off actions...

For myself, well most of my guns are Custom Rifles on converted M-98 Mausers..

This does not mean that I disaprove of Rugers, I think the Safari model Ruger is one of the finest production rifles to come along in a long time, what with a intregal quarter rib, decent to extra nice wood, barrel band swivel and front sight, and its a control feed with a M-70 type safty...For the money its a real winner.

Ray,

I still say you to have fingers like ET to operate the safeties on most of todays bolt actions...By that I mean you can't operate the safety without breaking your grip as you can on most service rifles such the M16 or FN Fal..

The nearest I have seen to ideal safeties (location wise) are the tang safeties on the old Ruger M77 Mk1 and similarly located safeties on one or two European rifles.

We put the safety on the tang of double rifles, shotguns and some single shots, so why not commonly on bolt actions???

Regards,

Pete

Ray, Thanks for the well thought out reply. I hope to someday get into recreational rifle shooting. Now isn't the time though. I appreciate the comments. Respectfully, Harry C.

Glad your happy Harry, I'm left with a heap of
little quiries. The crowd who won't use a Ruger
action for a custom rifle base supprise me with their reasons, but that's their business.
Me? Resale? I'd go for a well made up rifle with
a newish proven action rather than an "old ex.Mil cheapie".
Maybe I havent seen a mouser lately but an M17
I looked at was the "blockiest" over long action I could imagine. Safetys I've given up on, couldn't care less where they are. I just
close the bolt handle down when ready.
Control feed, is that the system (some) where you can't easly feed in one more round in a hurry?
The only story I can remember with
a cont.feed was the dangerous game shooter who
double clutched the bolt a bit and ejected a
round somewhere into the bush.
Cripes, my BA push feed will instantly load even
an empty case from sitting on the mag follower.

I think the Custom Rifle crowd a little bit funny, why order up a special rifle for yourself
with the thought of selling it?
If a "cast" (shudder) reciever is good enough for you as a shooter, how can it not be good enough for the same person to get dolled up a bit? And why do the custom makers display their samples with thoes funny scopes without
a front bell? Life is one big question to me.
John L.

Hello JAL,

I have similar questions. I used to make knives as a hobby and read good things about cast knoves by David Boye; claims about added strength and wear resistance. Cast parts make sense to me personally - alligning the grain of the steel, smaller grain structure, and whatnot.

I am, however, with Pete E. on the subject of the safety lever. Being a LEO I am pretty comfortable with the location of the Remington 870 button safety just forward of the trigger guard. I now use a Mossburg 500 that has a trigger on the tang like the original Ruger M77. It's okay but I am concerned about changing its position as I carry it one-handed.

It's to each their own. I have been so happy with Ruger handguns that I am probably not as objective as I should be about their products, even though I have never owned one of their rifles.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Respectfully,
Harry C.

Ray, I could be biased (being from her Britannic Majesty's Colony of Australia) but I was always taught that the 'perfect battle rifle' was the SMLE - fast, slick and almost impossible to jam with mud and debris...10 round mag.. but that doesn't answer the original question...

As to Rugers, as my handle would suggest, I love 'em.

I've owned a few, had a couple of custom rifles built up using the 77 and 77MkII actions, with a 'pretty' stock (I think that's the technical term... ) sold them for considerably more than I paid for them. They were handsome, accurate and functional rifles. All my Rugers have been extremely accurate, reliable rifles, and I certainly prefer them to Rem 700's of which I've owned a couple.

I'm not saying Win's aren't any good, (I like them as well, but they just don't light my fire...) but I wonder just how much of the 'reputation' is fundamentally marketing hype - I mean, who thought up the slogan - 'The Rifleman's Rifle'?

The marketplace is full of items/systems/products which attain an almost 'cult of desirability' status simply because of the efforts of the 'opinion makers'...

I would argue that this happened with the 270, it received glowing reviews from Elmer O'Connor (?) and as such became a mainstream calibre - is it really any better than a 7x64 or a 6.5/06?

I see this happening with the current crop of cartridges being released...

BTW, my current Ruger 77MkII is a 270...

I had a M77 MKII customized by Jim West in Anchorage about 8 or 9 years ago. I shoot left-handed and already had the rifle so that's what we used. If I shot right-handed I probably would've used a Mauser action but my affordable choices were small. I think the result is wonderful. My .300 Wing Mag now weighs almost 3 pounds less than original and the accuracy remained at MOA or less.

The Rugers are viewed with some prejuidce because they are cast......then there are those that don't like the scope mounting system , and there are also gripers about the front angled action screw and small recoil lug.

Then alot of custom rifles are built for the long cartridges like .375 or .300 Weatherby . To get a Ruger donor action long enough for those ,you would have to buy the extra high priced $1000+ safari grade rifle.

Some Rugers already come with custom features such as integral scope mounts and express sights.

In other aspects, Ruger drops the ball. They put a CRF extractor on, but don't go the extra mile and make it self-locking. Their recoil lug design is difficult to stock or bed. Their safety, though redesigned, still doesn't lock the firing pin.

That being said, I give Ruger a lot of credit for trying different ideas every now and then.

A tang safety works well on doubles because it can be an integral part of the firing mechanism. On a bolt rifle, it usually just locks the trigger, which isn't the best idea in a safety. The early 77 used a paper clip to connect the safety with the trigger.

A custom rifle is more than a tool, it is an investment. They retain their value not simply with quality, but by having qualities that are desireable to others. Most folks design a rifle solely to their preferences, instead of sticking to certain tried and true principles that retain value.

The surest way to have a $400 rifle is to take a $500 Remington and put $2K worth of work into it.

quote:

Then alot of custom rifles are built for the long cartridges like .375 or .300 Weatherby . To get a Ruger donor action long enough for those ,you would have to buy the extra high priced $1000+ safari grade rifle.

Not true. The .375 can be and has been fitted into the Ruger MkII long action without much more than opening the stock magazine well for the .375 length box. I have a magazine around here with an article on doing it.

quote:

Their safety, though redesigned, still doesn't lock the firing pin.

Perhaps I missing something, but in the rear-most position, the safety lever fits into the protruding shank (through the boltshroud) of the firing pin.

I understand the point about resale value and name recognition. The bedding and recoil lug issues make sense as well. What I don't understand is the problem with cast parts. The Rugers I have owned are as solid as a bank vault. I know of nothing in the casting process that produces a lesser final product.

The idea of a stainless steel M77 in .375H&H is really interesting!

Respectfully,
Harry C.

9.3x62,

Sorry for not being clearer. The safety locks the pin while in battery, and that is quite an improvement. It does not have the ability to lock the pin while cycling the bolt. In the middle position it only locks the trigger.

Toomany

Despite that article you mention , I think you will find that there is a bit more to it than simply slapping in a longer magazine......

No doubt the Ruger *could* be modified to accept the longer cartridges , but there are other actions that are easier.....

Hello,
Ruger's casting system, lost wax method, is one of the most sophisticated and finest methods known to produce very precise and very strong as needed parts, actions, etc. etc. The negatives about Ruger's cast firearm parts is nothing but hype and harkens back to the days of cast iron products being brittle, crude, rough, etc. and nothing could be further from the truth about Ruger's firearms. I think you will find Ruger is one of the best managed, forward thinking firms in America today and ranks very high in the world matter of fact. Can you imagine Ruger actually producing as many firearms as they do for global consumption and they not be of highest quality?? Not likely. You can bet if Winchester or Remington for that matter, could upgrade their production facilities equal to Ruger and use the investment cast system, they would do it in a heart beat and frankly ignore all the sobbing of the "old school..." shooters. Lest we forget, these "shoot'n irons" are mfg. by the factories to do one thing, and that is Make Money while they are doing it. There is nothing noble in the activity of firearms production by the large producers.
And by the way, if you spent 2000 dollars on "upgrades" of a Remington 700 you would be getting close to the basic cost of a fine world class Palma Rifle without any sights or other pieces of equipment. Ruger rifles are the closest thing out there today that resembles the "classic" bolt action rifle that the ordinaary sportsman can purchase without taking out a second mortgage.
Favor Center!!
dsiteman

KurtC,

With regards the extractor, can you explain what you mean by "self locking" and in what manner the CRF on a Ruger works differently to say a Mauser, Win M70, or a CZ550?

With regards the safety, does it hold true that the older two position safeties on things like Sako's and CZ's only block the trigger?

regards,

Pete

sdgunslinger,

No argument here. Sorry if my simplistic post gave you the wrong idea; fact is, .375 can be fitted into the long action Ruger, and if you shoot left-handed like me it is a viable option for a nice rifle. I happen to have a left-handed Model 70 in .375 already or I might have considered converting my rifle. Now that I think of it, if I convert the .375 to a .416 and then.....

As I've stated before I'm a huge Ruger fan and find them to be the strongest most rugged firearms made - period. Over the past few years all of my sporting rifles have now come to be Rugers (except for two Marlin saddleguns). You can bet that if Bill Ruger chose that casting method for the action of the M77 and other Ruger arms that it gives absolutely nothing up to the traditional methods of milling, etc.

It may seem unorthodox to some purists to use a casting, but believe me I'd wager it's unbelievably rugged and strong if Bill Ruger chose to use it. Like everything else that firearms genius did, he chose function and reliability over all else. The Rugers are sometimes "blocky" looking but they're so damned dependable and strong that it gives them a beauty of their own. My guns are tools. They're beautiful precision tools - I don't really care what they're worth - I want them to be 100% functional and of course have a certain degree of style to them also, but above all else I want them utterly reliable in the extreme. Rugers virtually define the term.

I think Ruger's scope mounting system is fantastic. Why would you want a separate mount and ring set-up when it's not necessary? Being integral to the reciever is a great idea to me.

I do have an older M77 and have to admit I love that tang safety, it's very natural and fast to get into action.

I'm particularly impressed with the RSM safari grade M77/MkII, it's a fantastic package considering the price.

PS: I too would love to see Ruger come out with an "Alaskan" model in .375 H&H and .458 Win - an 8 to 9 pound stainless/synthetic rifle with 20" bbl and a good set of ghost ring sights. I can understand the African safari crowd recoils at the non-traditional concept of stainless/synthetic, but when your equipment is soaked for 14 straight days 24/7 you begin to understand the beauty of stainless/synthetic rifles.

458Ruger#1, I am with you on stainless steel and synthetic. I have carried a handgun essentially 24/7 for the past 25 years. Given the choice I'll always go with stainless steel. We don't live in a perfect world and sometimes firearms don't get wiped down as often as they should. Stainless steel gives that extra margin of resistance. Respectfully, Harry C.

Yer well stainless may be OK, one character was
going to cover his in hard chrome, don't know
what colour that would have come out. Good old
posters have been trying to teach me Stainless
is the way to go, pistols are another matter in some ways, and most police wouldn't look after
their handgun much, esp. if it was "issued".
I suppose it has its place, I have one target
barrel in Stainless, and hopefully it will be
my last. Looks terrible, had been banned on
ranges due to the s.s. quality problem (like Sako/Tika), and I like wipeing my blued ones anyway.
JL

JAL,

Don't get me wrong, I love the classic look of blue/wood and the natural silver-wear they aquire with use and age. But stainless has it's place in extreme conditions was the main point, particularly for the "Alaskan" specialty rifle I was referring to.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete E:
KurtC,

With regards the extractor, can you explain what you mean by "self locking" and in what manner the CRF on a Ruger works differently to say a Mauser, Win M70, or a CZ550?

I've been wondering the exact same thing. Would you elaborate, Kurt?

I have examined the extractor of my CZ 550 against that of my Model 70 (a pre-64, if it matters) and cannot find any functional design or operational difference.

Have a left-hand stainless Ruger 77 MKII which was originally chambered for 7mm Rem Mag.

Bill Atkinson did a complete conversion including "stretching" the action to make it handle the long 458 Lott.

The whole job included a Shilen select-match stainless barrel, New England custom sights, Ruger barrel rib, stock work, etc.

Works great. Feeds 458 Lott or 458 Win Mag, any bullet, interchangeably.

Turned out very light for a 458 Lott.

Have had several other custom guns built on left-hand Ruger rifle actions.

Also had custom revolvers built on Old Model Ruger single actions. Never heard too many people complain about custom revolvers being built on Rugers. They're one of the best guns out there in mass quantities.

Happy with all of them.

Hammer

I'll try to explain the self-locking extractor, as Mauser designed it. I'll try to find a picture later.

Just behind the claw, there is a rib on the extractor that rides in the groove around the bolt. This rib is undercut at an angle, from the front. The groove is also undercut on the leading edge. When you pull the bolt rearwards, the cartridge tension pulls the extractor slightly forward, so that these two undercuts mate. This "lock" keeps the claw tight against the bolt (and cartridge rim), preventing the claw from ever over-riding the rim during extraction. The harder you pull, the tighter the "lock."

It is a simple milling operation to bevel the rib and groove. Ruger, Winchester (and Springfield) have chosen to omit this feature, despite their claims to use a "mauser-like claw extractor."

Incidently, the CZ-550 extractor has this self-locking feature and is true to the original Mauser design. (Get out your magnifying glass )

I hope my explanation helps folks to understand this. I know it would be easier with a picture or diagram.

quote:

Originally posted by 458RugerNo1:
JAL,

Don't get me wrong, I love the classic look of blue/wood and the natural silver-wear they aquire with use and age. But stainless has it's place in extreme conditions was the main point, particularly for the "Alaskan" specialty rifle I was referring to.

Sure and don't take me wrong either, I just ramble on, trying to learn as I stur the stew,
but anyone lives in a climate that needs chrome
plate on Stainless needs to think about shifting. :-)
JL.