A friend was by with his 1776-1976 Ruger for a cleaning. We were talking about control round feed and I was trying to explain, using his bolt. Did Ruger make those rifles with an upside down bolt face? Or did something really wrong happen just to his rifle? He said he has always had problems with feeding.

Is the cocking shroud screwed all the way in.

Early Ruger tang safety rifles(MK 1's) were push feed. They later opened up the lower boltface to allow CRF in the Mk 2's.

quote:

Early Ruger tang safety rifles(MK 1's) were push feed. They later opened up the lower boltface to allow CRF in the Mk 2's.

If he always had problems with feeding, it is not the design; he has other issues than that. Had several and still have two; Zero issues with any of them.
On the MK2 they had to remove the ejector as well as you can't have a crf with a push button bolt face ejector. I actually prefer the tang safety 77.

I thought they might have been digging around in Remington and Winchester's trash, came back with parts but could not remember which was which so they just put them together! No, wait, that was S&W's trash! I do remember that his Dad bought him a early VX Leupold for it. The scope did not have enough windage. The integral mounts were way off! I had to modify one ring to make it work.

Never had a problem with them feeding, nor scope mounting, and I had one of the first dog leg bolt handled 308s.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
If he always had problems with feeding, it is not the design; he has other issues than that. Had several and still have two; Zero issues with any of them.
On the MK2 they had to remove the ejector as well as you can't have a crf with a push button bolt face ejector. I actually prefer the tang safety 77.

I really like them. I have 4 all bought new between 1978 and 1984. Been using them for years and my first pick in a bolt gun.

Only owned one, a mid 70's, no problems with it. Started life as a 6mm Rem, later I had it rebarreled to 308 Win., fed both without a hiccup. Not my absolute favorite, but since I've had it for 40+ years I'm somewhat attached to it.

I didn't realize some early ones, tangers, were pushfeed. Will have to study my 308 F/S more closely. It won't make a difference. I love the look and handling of that gun. Since they don't put the right hand safety on the left side close to my thumb I prefer the tang safety models. A PH wrote once he figured a few PHs bought the farm on sudden charges when they couldn't get their safety off fast enough. Packy

Yes, most/may don't realize that they were push feeds because of the claw extractor, but it snaps over the case head each time.
Makes no difference; they are very reliable. The only reason controlled round feeding was invented was for untrained conscript soldiers who did not know how to operate a bolt action rifle. Early Mausers were all push feed. So, if you operate them correctly, you will never notice the difference except they feed smoother.

Ruger didn't make their barrels in house for the early M77's but sourced them from several different contractors. Some the sporters were of significantly heavier contour than others, while some exhibited acceptable accuracy and others shot about improved cylinder at forty yards. The barrels were the main drawback to the early tang safety models. Otherwise, I liked the early actions much better than the current ones, although the bottom metal left much to be desired.

They used mostly Wilson barrels and some did not shoot vey well. Most hunters did not notice the difference. I still have a 257 that shoots 1.1 moa; not super, but adequate. Bottom Metal is/was the same design as now. Made of aluminum. Floor plate is shorter by 1/4 inch, than the MK2.

I have never had problems with a Ruger 77 tang safety gun or the later mk 2s .....I even had my old 77 tang safety gun converted from tang safety to a mod. 70 3 pos safety and control feed and never a problem..