I have a Ruger M77 old-style with tang safety in 338WM. I want to rebarrel it to .416Taylor. What steps should take? Barrel sourece? Pitfalls? Is this a good platform for a 416Taylor? Thanks for all replies.

I think #5 contour is the lightest barrel available from folks like Douglas, Shilen and others in .416 caliber.....however you may wish for a heavier contour depending on your tastes.....Personally I'd use a #5.....Douglas or Shilen.

Pick one (MRC is also good stuff) and have it threaded, chambered and finished.

Install sights and barrel band and install cross bolts etc.....Next step is bluing and go hunting for something bigger than a prairie dog.

yes, it'll work pretty well.
an AB unthreaded barrel will work just fine.

the shilen# 5 is pretty heavy.

it only needs to weigh about 9# to be comfy, and that's heavy for a taylor.

have your smith knock an inch off the shank of an AB and go to work

jeffe

Great advice. Thanks!

Here's some pics of 2 rugers and a mauser I convereted to 470, 458 and 416 AR... the old style ruger is the 416, the new one, the 470, and the mauser is the test mule for the 458

http://www.weaponsmith.com/AR-rounds1.html

So, it sure looks like my fears of the Ruger's action not being strong enough were unwarranted. Those are some serious cartridges!

Hey Jeffe,

Are those stocks you turned yourself? If so what did you use for the pattern? I like the lines.

Paul

Jeffeosso

On the Ruger Mk II What is that incorrect bag on your Lead Sled?

Paul,
thanks on the stock lines!!! the 470 AR stock is a remote decentdant of a Gag pattern...
let's see.

rasped off GAG's cheekpiece, put on an english one

thinned the forearm "height" by 3/8"

pointed the gripcap at the heel, not the cheekpiece corner

recut, contoured, matched every other line

then turned it on the beaver!!


Old Coyote,
it's a rice sack... i know 5# of rice seems like too much weight for a leadsled, but even some days a bubba can't take a beatin!!!!

... filled with wheel weights!@

jeffe

My brother has a new A&B 415Taylor threaded for a Mauser3 that he will sell to me for $50.00. Would that work?

Jabs,
the AB 416 threaded barrel is 24" long..
you'll cut off about .665 off of it, i THINK the whoel shank would have to come off. i'll measure both tomorrow

it would be about 23" after it's done. which is pretty handy, if you wanted to do a 416 taylor OR ar.

but a 26" ab is only like 75-80 bucks, cut 1.5" off the shank, turn that down, and have a 24.5" 416, that should weigh about right

jeffe

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Here's some pics of 2 rugers and a mauser I convereted to 470, 458 and 416 AR... the old style ruger is the 416, the new one, the 470, and the mauser is the test mule for the 458

http://www.weaponsmith.com/AR-rounds1.html

Jeffeoso,
I visited the site you have displayed & downloaded the short movie regarding the oil bottle. I am told by the computer that quicktime cannot read this file.
Is this correct or do I need to do something else ?
Is it possible to see some more photos of the item you are using against the oil bottle.
I`ve made something quite similar & I`m having a hell of a time working out a successful mechanism.
Cheers Morton

It's hogkiller's cannon, just to be clear, and he can help you far more than I can on how to make the mechanism work

it's a quicktime MOV., so you might need to refresh your quicktime install.

or you can, from the AR pages, right click, "save target as" and then play from your desktop, rather than IE

jeffe

JABS:

In less you are going to do the work yourself you might get a smith under contract first. I know many smiths want touch a Ruger 77. The receivers are investment cast and will crack at the drop of a hat.
Longshot

I'm confused. I see Jeffeosso uses the M77 for his HUGE AR line of cartridges, then Longshot says they break at the drop of a hat. Clarification anyone?

quote:

Originally posted by Longshot:
JABS:

In less you are going to do the work yourself you might get a smith under contract first. I know many smiths want touch a Ruger 77. The receivers are investment cast and will crack at the drop of a hat.
Longshot

Who told you that??? While they are a little rough in appearance, what I've seen, they are one tough action.

MALM:

Look at many of the top smiths who have web sites. They list Ruger 77s as a type they don't work on. If you ever have one with a tight barrel the chances of twisting and cracking the receiver is much higher than those actions that are machined from a billet of steel or stainless steel. If here were not inheret problems than why don't you see the BR, LR, XC, F-Class shooters shooting them.
Longshot

Longshot

What do you think of the Montana actions?

Longshot,

I suggest that smiths not working on rugers is a matter of choice, not quality. I have never seen a ruger with a REMOTELY tight barrel.
Every ruger i've torn apart, from the factory, has antiseize on it.. stinks like plumbers thread compound...

remember, ALL ruger rifle actions are cast .. 10/22, mini 14, mini 30, all the 77, including the RSM which is chambered in 458 lott from the factory and is a frequent rebore (of the 416 rigby) to 505 gibbs. not a THING wrong with them in terms of strengh.

let's face facts, ruger's have a repution for mediocore accuracy, as a testimate to a cheap barreling process

this process has changed, and rugers frequently shoot "right with the other factory guns"

my complaint with rugers being cast is that you have to risk "killing" a salt bath to get them hot enough not to come out purple.

quote:

why don't you see the BR, LR, XC, F-Class shooters shooting them.

recall that this thread is about rebarreling a ruger to 416 taylor. I don't recall ever seeing one of these at a benchrest competition, even on the rams.

what DO those shooters use? highly modified remington 700s, or exotic actions based off that design, for probably 70-80% of those shooters..

They don't shoot mausers any more, savages (for the most part, those show up in the hunter class), CZ's, winchesters, sakos, brownings, marlins, off the shelf remingtons, weatherbys, mossbergs,howas, or any raft of other makes..not that this lack of showing is a testement to them being somehow bad actions.



jeffe

I find myself in the somewhat awkward position of agreeing with Keffe...

quote:

Originally posted by Longshot:
MALM:

Look at many of the top smiths who have web sites. They list Ruger 77s as a type they don't work on. If you ever have one with a tight barrel the chances of twisting and cracking the receiver is much higher than those actions that are machined from a billet of steel or stainless steel. If here were not inheret problems than why don't you see the BR, LR, XC, F-Class shooters shooting them.
Longshot

In the scheme of things, Rugers aren't the most exciting, popular, or, attractive action from which to build a work of art. They don't carry the same prestige, or, generate the same value as something built on a Mauser, Winchester, Sako, Remington, Weatherby etc. So I can see some "top" gunsmiths not wanting to waste their time on them.

The reason you don't see the Ruger action used in serious competition isn't because of some preceived weakness, or, inherent strength problems with the action. It is because the amount of work that it would take to bring a Ruger action to the point where it could go head to head with those cylindrical actions like Remington (the most copied design for competition) and it's clones, would be too cost prohibitive.

But, for a no nonsense, no frills hunting rifle, the action is certainly capable of withstanding the working pressures of the big magnums mentioned. And although I don't have a web site myself, I wouldn't have the slightest hesitation in converting a 338 Win Mag to the .416 Taylor.

Great! Now I have to get to work. Thanks!

quote:

it's a quicktime MOV., so you might need to refresh your quicktime install.

quote:

OK Thanks Jeffeosso,
I`ve updated the Quicktime player but it still tells me it is a file that quicktime does not understand. Not to worry, I`ll work something else out.
Thanks for the heads up on the cannon owner. How would I contact Hogkiller ?

Thanks Morton

As for the Montana 1999, they too are investment cast at Pine tree castings right beside the Rugers. They are a hybred between a model 70 winchester and a Mauser. Much better design than Ruger. I have built several Montana's with out any problem.

I am not saying you should not do a Ruger. I am saying most of the top smiths want touch them.

Most of the top target shooters don't shoot them for a reason.

I am not trying to belittle or condem a product just state a fact.

I don't even want to argue the point. I will say don't bring a Ruger 77 into my shop for rebarreling, because I want work on it. Enough said.
Longshot

Do the Montana receivers crack at the drop of a hat? Will the top smiths not touch them?

I have never had a Montana 1999 twist or crack. I personally have never had a Ruger twist or crack while in my shop. I have had one sent to me to work on that was already twisted. I have seen others that were cracked.

I would never tell another smith not to work on something. They will learn from their own experience soon enough.

There is nothing worse than having to call a customer and tell them you have ruined their action. It is costly either you buy them a new action, or they leave pissed.

There are some jobs not worth taking on from the get go.

My earlier post was purely for advise. If one is going to modify a Ruger 77. They should have a smith willing to work on it before they spend a lot of time and money getting parts for the job.

Longshot

quote:

Originally posted by Longshot:
JABS:

In less you are going to do the work yourself you might get a smith under contract first. I know many smiths want touch a Ruger 77. The receivers are investment cast and will crack at the drop of a hat.
Longshot

To this I agree.....get your "smith" to agree to do the work first.

I have never worked on a Ruger and can say I doubt seriously that I ever would.....I just don't like them at all!!!!

However this statement:

quote:

The receivers are investment cast and will crack at the drop of a hat.

Is pure bullshit. If you want to bash Rugers go for it....I support ya there....but investment casting is a fine process and to say that an action is bad because it's investment cast is just plain wrong.

To suggest that Rugers are not strong enough for such cartridges as the ones in this thread is also just plain wrong.

quote:

Pine tree castings

that company is ruger's casting daughter corporation

Let's see
rugers are
3 position safety
floorplate released
double square bridged
intregal quick release dovetailed scope mounts
CRF
EASY to inlet for
and have a decent replacement trigger available.

with the price of winchesters skyrocketing, and no more global trading "legacy mausers", i expect these will come up in general gunsmithing more and more, as a function of cost.

Jeffe
in this photo of a VZ-24 chambered to 458 AR



did you have any trouble getting the round to feed well?...did you heat treat the action?

Please tell me more about how this action handled the 458 AR.

Very interesting.

Rifle on the left (which is now finished) is a ruger roundtop in 416 AR.. it's Frank's. AB 416 unchambered barrel. Other than opening "windows" in the mag box and opening the feed rails, it was a slam dunk. a mkII is even easier.

rifle on the right is a TOO short (21") 458 AR (parker hale take off barrel) for a load/range mule.

i started another thread to discuss the 458 AR

quote:

i started another thread to discuss the 458 AR

I saw that...thank you.