Ruger 77/22 in 22 Hornet~heavy barrel varmint, or sporter barrel?

[.22LRGUY]

Hey guys, I've had the "varmint barrel blinders" on for some time, but I'm starting to open my mind a little to the prospect of making my next rifle a sporter-weight. I've never owned a Ruger bolt action, but I'm intrigued by the thought of getting a 77/22, since they look/feel nice...and almost every online review I've read seems favorable. I'd basically decided that the next rifle I buy would BE a 77/22 in 22 Hornet, the heavy-barrel/laminated stock varmint model...

Then I read this article that seems to "make a case" for the standard one. http://www.realguns.com/archives/183.htm I do like walnut/steel, but I'm a big guy and can take a little extra weight when a long carry is required. Application would be varmint hunting. Some groundhog in Ontario but hopefully....allot of gopher "work" in Alberta. With so little powder, is it likely a standard-weight barrel will heat-up to the point of having an impact on accuracy IN a higher-volume varmint-hunting scenario?

On a side note...if you happen to be a Ruger 77/22 Varmint owner...or know more about them than I do, can you tell me if the Varmint model is indeed stainless steel? The finish looks almost like pewter, too "grey" to be SS.

 

[Fassteel]

The varmint 77 isn't a true HB rifle, and yes any rifle is going to heat up after 15 rapid fire shots even with hornet ammo. A bud of mine has the 77 and he loves shooting it. I don't think the grey barrel is stainless, the ruger web site should say. FS

 

[jjohnwm]

Yes, they are stainless, with a finish which I believe Ruger referred to as "Target Grey". My only experience with the 77/22 Hornet was the standard version, and it shot well enough, but mine had that odd plum-coloured bluing on the receiver only and it bugged me enough that I eventually sold it. I do have a couple of the HB target versions (in .22Mag and .22LR) and they are outstanding shooters. They have heavier, longer barrels than the blued guns, but they certainly aren't true heavyweights. They carry and balance nicely, except for the slightly chunky feel through the midsection caused by the rotary magazine. I like'em.

One thing to be aware of: the combination of fairly high bolt lift and the height of rings that Ruger supplies with these guns (medium?) can prevent the use of many scopes whose eyepieces are just a little too fat to clear the bolt handle when it is raised and pulled rearward. Leupolds are nice and slim and work well, but a lot of others simply won't fit. If you want to get higher rings, or if you have a collection of optics and don't mind playing musical scopes with your other guns to get a match, you will be okay. If you need to buy a scope for the gun, try before you buy.

 

[.22LRGUY]

Hey guys, thanks so much for the replies~VERY helpful. I have no intention of ordering one of these rifles online, I DO plan on going to fondle one when the time comes and make the call then. (to determine heft/balance/feel) The photo in my thread starter is from a dealer about 2 hours from where I live, that may be the very rifle I end-up with. jjohnwm~would you say the bolt-throw rivals a CZ? Was hoping it would be a bit more forgiving than that. One last question~there seems to be a ton of positive things said about these guns, plenty of positive online reviews, etc....yet..I've had a couple of friends suggest I steer clear of them. I guess there have been some rumors of QC being bad with these guns, poor accuracy, etc. The only Ruger I've ever owned was a 10/22 and indeed, might have been the most inaccurate rifle I've ever owned. BUT...I'd like to think that when you pay 2-3x as much for a 77/22, you're getting a step=up in quality. Thoughts?

 

[marcoman]

Had a laminate/stainless (yes they are stainless) version briefly. Shot very well with 45gr SP's and 4227, but mediocre at best with all factory ammo I tried. especially Hornady 35gr v-max. Ruger used to call the finish "anti-corro tehune" in their old literature, but Target Grey is the more common moniker.
The gun is a quality piece as most Ruger products are, but if I was going to buy another .22hornet it would be an older Anschutz.

 

[jjohnwm]

...would you say the bolt-throw rivals a CZ? Was hoping it would be a bit more forgiving than that...

I just compared the two side-by-each. It's a difficult thing to measure, but to my eye the angle of the raised bolt...and therefore, the PITA quotient when mounting a scope ...looks pretty much equal. In both cases I am forced to use rings a bit higher than I would consider ideal. The Ruger has the upper surface of the bolt handle scooped out a bit, which keeps the situation from being impossible, but it's still probably the worst gun I own in terms of scoping it acceptably. My CZ is a Lux sporter, and I have a Leupold 4x rimfire scope because it keeps it trim and compact. I prefer more power in a scope for the Ruger HB/laminate guns, and that makes it tougher to get the (bigger) scope to fit. I have a 6x Leupold on the .22LR and a 35-10x Leupold on the .22Mag. They just barely clear the bolt handles on those guns with medium rings.

The Ruger bolt guns are definitely several cuts above the 10/22 in quality and finish. The .22Mag in particular is a keeper. I went through probably a dozen assorted .22Mags looking for one this accurate...it's always more challenging to find a truly accurate .22Mag than a .22LR, so this one is a keeper.