I have a 77/22 Hornet that needs glass bedding as it has quite alot of stress when tested by a dial indicator in a vise.

The trigger guard assembly also has alot of stress as noticed when screwing down the rear action screw. Should I lap the metal lugs or cams to allow the trigger guard to bottom out and seat without any springing up when tightening the rear guard screw or just glass bed as is? I

Is this just inherent to the design of this little Ruger action?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Roger.

eshell,

Did you notice the trigger guard springing upward when you loosened the rear action screw? I'm trying to determine if this is normal on all 77/22's or just a problem on mine.

Roger.

Good luck with the Ruger 22 Hornet. I love the 22 Hornet round and the Ruger was the worst rifle I have ever owned that was chambered for the 22 Hornet. 2 1/2" to 3" groups with factory ammo and no better with my handloads. Took it the smith that does all my work and he got it down to 1" groups with my best handloads for about 20 shoots then there was so much copper in the barrel accuracy just goes away. I have an Anschutz, and a 43 Win. chambered for the Hornet that shoot great. I finally unloaded that rifle for an old 700 Rem. chambered for the 308 and had the smith turn it into a real nice hunting weight 260. Best trade I ever made, got 125 dollars and the old 700. Hope you have better luck with yours than I did with mine. It sure soured me on Ruger rifles.

Shoot Safe, Shoot Straight......RiverRat

Seems like these guys know something about those Ruger hornets and might be worth a call:

www.ct-precision.com

I have one of those little Ruger Hornets, too. A sweet little rifle it is, now....after a lot of headaches.

I got mine about eight years ago on a friends recommendation that it was a great little rifle and that they shot great. His shot great...from the factory. Mine did not. It shot 6" patterns at 50 yards. This was with factory and with handloads. I tried everything I could possibly think of to try, and spent a lot of money hoping to find a "magic" component. Everything failed.

I sent it back to Ruger. They put a new barrel on it and sent it back. To make a long story short...it didn't help.

I sent it back again with a note telling them to not even bother sending it back to me unless they fixed it. When it arrived, I was anxious to open the box and try it out. When the box was opened, my heart began to race...I was looking a beautiful piece of wood...one of the prettiest pieces I have seen on any Ruger. They also put another new barrel on it, and I not sure if I'm dreaming this or not, but the trigger isn't too bad either. They had to have touched it up a bit...It's not perfect, but not too bad.

I worked with it off and on for quite a while, still not completely happy with it, but didn't really have a lot of time to mess with it much. Accuracy was still pretty poor, but much better than I was getting...about 1" three shot groups at 50 yards with 40 gr. VMAX's.

Then the 35 grainer came out! I must have found a magic "something" for it because it shoots great now. Groups are hovering at 1/4" - 3/8" for 4 with a flyer opening it up to about 3/4" at 50 yards for the 5 shot group. I almost always get that one flyer... Now a lot of you guys may think that 1 1/2" 100 yard equivilent groups are pretty lousy, but considering what I started with, it aint too bad, for a leightweight rifle. Sure, I'd like it to be better, but the world aint perfect, and I generally don't shoot past 200 yards anyway!

Since I settled on my load with the 35 grainer, I refuse to put it back on paper. The last thing I want to do with it now is to find out it doesn�t shoot as good anymore. It performs great in the field, and I shoot several hundred rounds per year at chizzlers (small gophers) and rock chucks. The last time it was on paper, it shot great, with the exception of the flyer. I now go to the field confident that the rifle will do its job. Besides, the �occasional� miss could be my fault, too!

When some money frees up, I would like to have it bedded, hoping that that will cure the flyer problem�but until I can afford it, I �don�t want to mess it up!� The barrel is completely free-floated. For now, it is my main go to gun accounting for many, many chizzlers and a fair number of chucks. I�m just getting into some prairie dogs, and hope it�ll rack up a good score there, too. Until that money is available to bed it, it�s performance has given me the confidence in it to not be overly concerned with it. But I sure as heck wish that I didn�t know about that darn flyer!

I realize I didn't really contribute any valuable information, but it felt good to talk well of the rifle!

Ah yes, the infamous Ruger 77/22 Hornet. A very pretty rifle. A pretty poor excuse for one too in many ways. Will never buy one again regardless of caliber and I want a 17HMR really bad. Well, if I found one really, really, really CHEAP I might think about it.

I've discussed this much.

In my opinion the 77/Hornets woes are in the Factory chambering specs.

Punch it to K-Hornet(by a good 'Smith) and it will dazzle. I've built 4 of them and pards bring the tally to over a dozen now and all except one wear Factory tubes rechambered to K-Hornet. They shoot wonderfully.

Steered a buncha guys that direction on "Shooters" and they had like results.

Food for thought and makes for a splendid little rifle................

I think the K is a better animal(in both performance and accuracy potential) and prefer the notion of headspacing the shoulder,as opposed to random rim dimensions in an overly generous chamber body.

My point was,I've yet to experience a poor issued 77/Hornet tube and have been around a bunch of 'em. I don't mean to infer they was dazzling outta the gate,but the new chamber cured ALL accuracy woes.

For $100 you get a stunning increase in accuracy potential,improved performance(I shoot the 33gr V-max at better than 3400fps) and a very practical/handy little rifle.

As an aside,I bob all my K-Hornet barrels to 20" as it improves the balance in my opinion. The S/S heavy barreled version is my preference and is a damned fabulous rifle......................

Big Stick,

I am intersted in hearing about the factory chamber specs, too.

I have considered punching to K, myself. I have a No. 1 in Hornet that I was thinking very hard about punching. My decision to do the No. 1 was basically because I want the standard Hornet and the K, too. Having both the 77 and the No. 1, I just figured I do the No. 1. But maybe I should keep the No. 1 standard and punch the 77 out...

Things that make you go hummmmm.

Edited: Posted for Big Stick on chamber, but he basically answered while I was typing.

[ 06-13-2003, 21:05: Message edited by: Trapdoor ]

My thoughts are: that pards and I bought over 7,000 of the 33gr V-Max "blems" a coupla years ago from LS&B.

All of us shoot the same rifles(77/22's punched K-Hornet)and the same brass/powder/primer with that projectile. 14.0grs of 296 yields over 3400fps in all of those tubes,with R/P hulls and CCI 200's outta 20" tubes.

I also have a Pre-'64 K-Hornet wearing a 24" long,1-14" twist Shilen tube and it gains dick in speed,compared to the 20 inchers. 14grs of propellant isn't much fuel to effectively consume and the 20" version suits me(us).

I much prefer the Ruger's rotary mag and the 20" balance,but that is subjective.

I also built a Number One in K-Hornet but it was sorta like a monkey fucking a jug. That large action spoiled the attributes of the dainty cartridge and I had zero love for it,though it too shot well. A pard has a Martini in K-Hornet and it is a more svelte offering IMHO.

Anyhow,we all shoot the shit outta the 77/K-Hornets and it is uniformly excellent with the above recipe. It scatters Vermin nicely,recoils none and is an easy 200yd cartridge,all with great brass life. We are down to under 1K of those projectiles between us and ALL have been launched in the 77/K's,with the above recipe.

Your mileage may vary................

Big Stick--

You sound like you shoot about as many K-Hornets as I do......3300 so-far this year......your experience with Ruger barrels is ALL TOGETHER different than mine.

I have one of the few 1-A Hornets that I rechambered to K the first day I owned it.. It's now about 14,000 rounds and still shoots well. Out of seventeen 77/Hornet barrels I experimented with I never found a barrel OR a gun that was worth investing a hundred bucks in.

Hopefully your's are later guns and they FINALLY got it right....but I really doubt it.

Send me an addy and I'll email you the article I wrote for Varmint Hunter and published in #22.

Let me know if you want more magazines, too.

Jack,

I'm actually a 223AI Fan but have a spot for the K-Hornet as well.

Have you punched many 77/22 Hornets to K-Hornet? If so,what were your findings? I'm certain I have VH #22 on hand,as I've subscribed longer than that.

I bought the first walnut/blued one that I could get hold of and punched it out(built the Winny Pre-'64 prior to it) and then had it teflon coated to fend our less than exemplary weather conditions. It responded well enough,that it spawned other 77/22 K-converts.

That rifle is still in the stable,but I much prefer the rugged durability of the S/S version,as I'm pretty tough on riggin' on the average.

Everybody that I know,that has went the K-route on the 77/22,has been delighted and that is the sole observation I can offer.

If my first one had been a POS,I'd of not built more,nor would pards. 'Course I'm sweet on 700's,X bullets and McMillan handles. Shows you how much I know!??!(grin)

Regards........................

Big Stick---

I had done a lot of K-Hornets before Ross Seyfried recommended me in a Guns and Ammo article in the mid eighties to do the work.

I've done more than three hundred since then.

The K-Hornet is one of the world's greatest cartridges.

BTW- When the good folks at Montana Rifle Co ask what their next action should be I recommended a two thirds scale falling block...... and it got a LOT of support from other forum members. There is NO way a fellow can have too many Kilborns around.

Jack,

That would be a snazzy little action for the "K" and I suspect it would generate much interest.

Nowwww I gotta hold your feet to the fire a smidge. Have you rechambered Ruger 77's to K-Hornet and had less than positive feedback ala their issued tubes? I just ain't seen it and am curious to hear if you have seen the contrary?

Respectfully submitted,as it isn't my intent to bust your balls..................

Big Stick--

I bought a used 77/22Hornet from Ray Atkinson that was REALLY doing good to hit a big hat at a hundred yards after 20 shots or so. My varmint partner bought a new one that was worse. Another good friend bought a new one and immediately sold it as worse than useless.

I rebuilt two completely. The Varmint Hunter article explains the extensive work done to them. What I managed to do was make the guns *better* with $650 work on each.....neither was as consistently accurate as my sixty year old Model 43. The work was a waste of time and MY money.

After the article came out three customers wouldn't take "No" for an answer and insisted on paying me a rediculous amount of money to duplicate the two earlier failures.......again, sometimes three rounds in a row in a dime but most of the time it was two touching, one an inch high, one an inch low. Sometimes alternating and sometimes just random.

I've talked to about sixty owners of 77/Hornets and have had several that were satisfied but the vast majority feel the rifles aren't worth the money ask for them. It's a REAL shame. They're VERY nice rifles.

The problem, as I see it, is the firing pin that travels a path at an angle to the bore. That's the only way I can explain why the rimfire rifles built on the same design are usually pretty accurate. Those firing pins travel parrallel to the bore.

The only way to test my theory is to make a new front half of the bolt (simple) and put the firing pin in the middle. Unfortunately that means the magazine can't be used.

Some of the very best truck/walking varmint rigs I've done are the Ruger Number One- B Hornets.

I re-chamber to K, cut and crown to 21 inches and trim half inch from the buttstock and reinstall the pad. I've done a dozen of them so-far.

They balance like a bullpup and shoot extremely well ...... IF the action is straight.

I've had three actions that were too far out of whack to fix.......or the customer decided it would cost too much to make them right. (Breech block out of square AND traveling out of square, or barrel threads pointing off in the bushes somewhere.)

OH yeah---

I traded the 77/H I'd spent so much on for a CZ-527 Hornet. I pulled the barrel and checked everything, rechambered to K and recrowned. I checked the bedding and decided it only needed a shim to level the pressure on the action....I STILL haven't glassed it........the barrel was bedded and I evened up that pressure as well.

Here's the only three rounds that rifle has ever shot on paper.

Jack,

I appreciate your time.

It is interesting that you had zero luck reworking them and all parties here have been delighted with a simple rechambering job and a new crown after bobbing the tube. That is an observation,not a cynical barb.

Only one of my pards dabbled in the bolt shimming operation and he couldn't discern any improvement,though that procedure was after the rechambering had already been done.

The same guy has built all of ours and I know he isn't using any mystical powers nor laborious machining operations,as the turn around is swift and fees well within reason. He's also built quite a few for guys on these Boards,all with like "luck".

Perhaps there is something to the projectiles being used and throat geometry....................

try recutting the crown. That worked for me. I also did some glassbedding and replaced the sear and spring. down to an inch verses 5" with average factory and 2-3" with careful hand loads.

I think that the Ruger 77/22 has several factory and design faults. First, you have a two piece bolt. Second, the rear of the trigger guard is under stress, when you tighten the rear tang screw. Third, the trigger mechanism is junk. Bill Ruger designed guns to make money and take production short cuts, in order to. Most parts, in all Ruger firearms are "investment cast", needing a minimum of machining. It saves money, but does nothing to enhance accuracy.