I tried some 376 Steyr ammo in my Ruger 77 MK II today, just to see if it was close to feeding and function etc. Of course the bolt face/extractor is too small, but aside from that - surprise - it looks like a natural. Four down, and they come off the feed rails aligned with the bore very - very nicely. Looks like the only modifications needed will be to open the bolt face and extractor. It couldn't get much easier than that.

I always thought favorably of the 376 Steyr as a well thought out cartridge, but I already have the 9.3x62. The two are pretty close, but it sure would be fun to work with the 376. It just so happens that I have another donor Ruger action that I've been trying to figure what to do with -- humm.

KB

I have one here in 376 Steyr that I am making into a 375 Ruger. Of the two, I believe the case design is better. More shoulder to support the case.

i personally love the steyr .. though it is less than the HH .. the 375 ruger is the better.. but you'll probably get one more down with a steyr

quote:

Originally posted by Westpac:
I have one here in 376 Steyr that I am making into a 375 Ruger. Of the two, I believe the case design is better. More shoulder to support the case.

If the rifle is for sale, and you havent already started the conversion, I may be interested in it chambered in the Steyr. If so, PM me and we can discuss details.

Of course the 375 Ruger has more shoulder, but IMO the 376 Steyr has plenty of shoulder, so to me that's not a relevant factor in the decision of choosing one over the other.

I also think there is little doubt that the 375 Ruger would sell easier.

Of course the 375 Ruger is more powerful, but I am reasonably sure that the 376 Steyr has more than enough for my use.

KB

KB,

Yes it will

376 steyr on an FN

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
10. You can tell the quality of the answer by the number of posts the poster has.

Is the quality inversely proportional to the number of posts?

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
If the rifle is for sale, and you havent already started the conversion, I may be interested in it chambered in the Steyr. If so, PM me and we can discuss details.

The rifle belongs to a customer and is not for sale.

Nice picture Mike. That looks like my old stomping ground when I lived on Chichagof Island. Brown bears were everywhere. I really miss it. Lots of Sitka deer too. No black bears - the griz apparantly ate them all.

In such a place, I would feel about as comfortable toting a slick feeding rifle chambered in 376 Steyr as any. Another way of saying it - still nervous but reasonably sure the rifle will do the job if needed. When I lived there I mostly hunted deer with a 338.

Hunting deer ther ain't the same as in the south. Knowing one isn't at the top of the food chain really is an attitude adjuster. For sure the bears want any deer shot, and they can smell it and the blood for a long ways, and some want you too. Kinda adds to the level of the hunting experience, and a darn good excuse to tote a bigger gun.

Thanks,
KB

Mike from CA and Mike from CO,

It's interesting that Mike D's rifle is on a FN. Some time ago I considered the 376 Steyr and had dies, shell holder, and some brass. So I made some dummy rounds and tried them in several actions I had at that time. As I remember, all those I tried were Mausers, commercial and military, but I may have tried a Winchester action too. I don't recall trying a Ruger action.

After a while, I sort of became discouraged because none of the actions I tried seemed to be a good match, and none would take more than three down. I'm reasonably sure that some could have been made to feed properly, but I want to see that a cartridge is really close to feeding well before proceeding with an expensive project. It's just issue of mine developed over time after spending lots of money on rifles that didn't work out because of feeding issues.

Anyway, I sold the brass, dies, etc., and basically wrote off the cartridge. Then recently a friend practically gave me two boxes of new 376 Steyr ammo, which he had no use for. So, I had to try it again.

First, among several Mauser actions that I have now, I found one that seems to have feed rails opened up just right - not too much, not too little. Too little and the cartridge jams or doesn't kick out right from under the rail -- too much and the cartridge won't stay under the rail long enough and pops out too early, or several cartridges pop out together. That's a mess.

Also, I have a Blackburn bottom metal unit - std 30-06 size - so with it attached to the action that feeds well, I can easily get four down. It's not super smooth, and obviously the bolt face will need to be opened, but I can see that it will be an easy conversion for the gunsmith, and will smooth up as the rifle is used. This is a new action, so it's a little tight.

Then I tried the cartridges - full magazine - four down, in an unmodified Ruger action. Very smooth feeding off the rails.

Again - the Ruger trumps the Mauser - for feeding, and cost of conversion, and the Ruger is stainless.

So, is the choice of actions that obvious, or would you go with the Mauser anyway?

KB

Kabluey, Malm, et. al. -

This is a really good thread! Lots of nuggets of useful info in it.

Now, just out of curiosity, WHICH Mark II Ruger action are you guys talking about? (Iv'e never owned a Mk II, so am not familiar with the variety of sizes/bolt faces/etc. in which they are available.....).

The Ruger action that I'm trying the feeding in was originally a 7x64 according to the gunsmith who rebarreled it. I believe there was nothing done to alter the feed rails or bolt face. The action I'm thinking of using is another action, but also a Ruger with a 30-06 barrel on it now. It's stainless. Of course I'll have to confirm the feeding, but I haven't found any significant difference in comparing actions.

Both these Rugers are older 77 Mk II, not the newer hawkeye, but I think there isn't any difference in the specifications. The last and only hawkeye I've handled was rough, and needed breaking in, and didn't feed as well as I am used to. The extractor collar was actually larger in diameter than the bolt, so it hung up on the cartridge rim below in the magazine. I polished the edge off and improved a lot.

KB

Just an FYI, the .376 Steyr is just about a perfect fit for the Montana 1999 SA which is actually an intermediate length action. The magazine is 3.125 and I believe the Steyr's OAL is 3.10.

The Montana's a heavy action to too, soak up a little recoil. From what I've read here though it takes a bit of work to make it feed flawlessly. IIRC someone here had one made up by MRC and it turned out very well though MRC said they would not do it again, the feed work being too difficult.

quote:

Originally posted by Recoil Rob:
Just an FYI, the .376 Steyr is just about a perfect fit for the Montana 1999 SA which is actually an intermediate length action. The magazine is 3.125 and I believe the Steyr's OAL is 3.10.

The Montana's a heavy action to too, soak up a little recoil. From what I've read here though it takes a bit of work to make it feed flawlessly.

Good post, Rob. I have a spare M1999 stainless short magnum action right now,but it is dedicated to a 9.3 WSM, and has been for the last 3 years.

I already have a .376 Steyr too, in a Steyr Pro-Hunter SBS. Must say, I don't find the recoil anything to mention, with either factory ammo or with my heaviest handloads. That's one of the reasons I love the cartridge, at least in the Steyr rifle.

So basically what I have learned here is that all of the Ruger Mk II actons are the same length; the only thing that might vary is the two bolt faces (standard & magnum)? Is that correct? Don't any of the opening widths between the rails vary either?

Am being pestiferous about this because I hope there'll come a time when I'll need to know.

Thanks,

AC

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

So basically what I have learned here is that all of the Ruger Mk II actons are the same length; the only thing that might vary is the two bolt faces (standard & magnum)? Is that correct? Don't any of the opening widths between the rails vary either?

Thanks,

AC

No, that's not correct. I didn't mean to give that impression. I'm not claiming to know all about the Ruger 77 MK II action, but they make several variants of the rifle, some with short action and some with long action. And I think they still call the ones chambered in the big African cartridges a 77 MK II as well, which use really long actions. On the short action, they use it for 223, and 7.62x39 by having a smaller bolt face, different follower, and blocking off the magazine. They also use the same action for the short magnums, again with a different follower and i think a different magazine box and feed rails - compared to the action they use for a 308 or 243, but they are all MKII short actions.

I think the long action for the standard belted magnums has a different follower, and maybe different box compared to an action designated for the 30-06.

The actions I am considering in my post are 30-06 length MK II Ruger actions. One is blued, and originally barreled as a special run in 7x64, and the other is stainless has a 30-06 barrel on it. I believe that they will be very close to the same regarding feeding, and will have very close to the same feed rails, magazine box, follower, etc, but as I said that will need to be confirmed. I can't do that right now since I have in my possession the blued action, but the stainless action 30-06 is at the gunsmith's shop.

So in summary, with Ruger actions I think it's important to know what the rifle was/is initially chambered in. The best results will come from rebarreling in a similar cartridge. For example, an action with a 270 barrel will most likely work well with no modifications rebarreled to any cartridge that is derived from 30-06 brass, plus any cartridge derived off the 57mm brass, like 8x57, plus the 9.3x62.

An action for example initially barreled in 7mm Remington mag will most likely work well with any 2.5" belted mag.

And so forth and likewise for the short mags.

The reason I'm looking at the actions I mentioned is because they were initially barreled in the closest to the 376 Steyr cartridge that I can find, thus are most likely to succeed with a rebarrel, with the minimum modifications to get it to feed properly.

If the 376 Steyr cartridge was one in a series of cartridges using basically the same brass, case head diameter, length, etc, then most likely there would be an action designed around that series, and that's the action I would pick for the rebarrel. However, the 376 Steyr is odd, so I have to pick an action designed for the closest cartridge series. Fortunately there are several options, but none will include a bolt face already larger than needed, and none will be push feed. That's because the bolt face will need to be opened up a little and Rugers and Mausers are relatively easy to work with on that.

I hope I have answered your questions, and not confused you. This rebarreling thing is not complicated but it certainly can be made into something complicated. The best way I know of to achieve complexity is to try to mate up an action with a cartridge that it was not initially designed for. It's far better to settle these issues first thing by finding a good match between cartridge and action, then proceed.

KB

curernt ruger production mkII
RSM- its NOT a mkII, just wanted to clear the action on that one. it's HUGE

long, left, right, stainless, blue... 3.4" mag box, stainless bolt all models, more or less CRF

short, left, right, stainless, blue... 2.8"" mag box, stainless bolt all models, more or less CRF

223/7.62x39 -- i BELIEVE these are a different action than above or below

77/22 - 77/44 -- these LOOK like a 77, but are a rotary box clip feed rifle.

Kabluewy and Jeffeosso-

Thanks for the thorough explanations. That's the way I have always handled/chosen all other rifle action makes I've used in conversions, but I thought from what was said in the beginning of this thread that maybe Ruger had come up with something else.

I once saw a rifle (can't recall the make) which basically used the same action for everything except the long magnums, by not using the rails of the action as feeding guides. Instead it had magazine boxes fitted inside the stock, much like the detachable Browning magazine boxes which attach to the floorplates in the BARs. The boxes handled all the cartridge holding and feeding chores...the action rails did not. I thought maybe Ruger had gone with something akin to that.

I didn't know because ever since Ruger brought out that first hideous hard plastic stock on the Mark IIs, I haven't even looked at their new ones, let alone owned or worked on any. I own a couple dozen Rugers or so in all, but all are either No. 1 models, No. 3s, or the older M 77s.

Was it maybe the Sauer 200 series that had the sheet metal boxes to guide feeding rather than use the action rails? Darned if I can recall.

Anyway, thanks again to both of you for your patience and willingness to explain further.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
curernt ruger production mkII
RSM- its NOT a mkII, just wanted to clear the action on that one. it's HUGE

long, left, right, stainless, blue... 3.4" mag box, stainless bolt all models, more or less CRF

short, left, right, stainless, blue... 2.8"" mag box, stainless bolt all models, more or less CRF

223/7.62x39 -- i BELIEVE these are a different action than above or below

77/22 - 77/44 -- these LOOK like a 77, but are a rotary box clip feed rifle.

The action used for the 223 and the 7.62x39 is the same action as used for 243, 308 etc., just different follower, and bolt face, and the magazine box may be different, but for sure it has a block in it to make it shorter.

The 77/22 and 77/44 is a mod 77 only in name. It is a much different action design compared to the standard centerfire 77 mk II actions.

The 77/22 and 77/44 is different not only that it uses a detachable rotary magazine, but it basically has no recoil lug. Apparantly the action itself - overall is the recoil lug, or it's off the front guard screw. The locking lugs are not up front, but rather further back on the bolt, not at the rear but closer to the front. The front part of the bolt rotates independently from the rest of the bolt, and has extractors on both sides as I remember. I think the barrel on the 22 is wedged in the receiver with no threads, and I don't know about the 44, but I wouldn't be surprised about anything with that rifle.

I wouldn't have a 77/44 if someone gave me two. The one I had took the prize as the most inaccurate rifle I have over owned or shot. I traded it at a pawn shop in Georgia for a 77 MKII in 308 and never looked back.

KB