Ruger centerfire ?'s

J

Jayph

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
96   0   0
I was just looking around and seen that ruger offers some factory rifles in calibers that interest me. I have no expierience with Ruger other than most people telling me how much they suck. :D However most of there stories are from a gun they had 10 years ago and I have read alot of good about Ruger's modern day rifle.

My question's are what is the difference between the Ruger M77 MK II and the Ruger M77 Hawkeye? They are similar in price, is one better than the other? Is the modern day Ruger rifle a decent rifle for the money? Would you recoment the Ruger over tikka/savage/vanguard?

Thanks in advance.
 
the M77 Hawkeyes are a new line, the differences are minor.
theyre advertised as having the new Ruger LC6 trigger, but actually all Ruger M77s have been shipping with them since around the 190 serial #s, over the last year or so. i have both old M77 triggers and the new LC6 trigger. lot of people used to complain about the old Ruger M77 Mark II triggers but i guess i lucked out, i was happy with all of mine. the new LC6 is definitely an improvement though - breaks like glass. if you are buying a used rifle you can recognize the LC6 trigger because it has a deep groove running vertically along the back of the trigger (you dont even have to remove the stock or triggerguard, its easy to see). the old trigger is flat/smooth at the back.

the Hawkeye has a slightly different stock contour, new recoil pad and a laser etched Ruger logo on the floorplate.

just ignore the Hawkeye/Mark II designations and get the Ruger M77 rifle that you like best. the differences between the lines are minor, and if you buy any new Ruger M77 youll get the LC6 trigger anyway.

for the record IMO Ruger offers the best bolt gun under $1000. controlled feed, huge non-rotating Mauser claw extractor, fixed ejector, integral bases and free QR rings, better than average fit & finish. all of mine have been accurate as well - MOA or better.
 
Last edited:
Sorry - don't like Ruger rifles. Many do, apparently, but only God knows why!
Over Savage, some models, Vanguard needs a better trigger to make it a good gun, and a Tikka off the shelf beats them all. Buy them now - demand alone is sure to drive the prices up, and they're quite reasonable right now. Hard to beat the action or the trigger on a Tikka for factory stuff
 
Nuthin' wrong with Rugers , for sure.
I have owned and shot lots of them , abit they were no.1's.
A friend has no less than 5 M77's and they shoot very well....
Cat
 
As well as several Ruger No.1's, I have two Model 77 Mk.II's. One is in .300WSM and with a cheap box of Federals I was able to put a toonie over the first five shots I took with it at 100yds. and it's gotten tighter with handloads. The other is the heavy barrelled target/varmit model in .223. This gun consistently puts 10 shot groups of 50 gr. BT's into 5/8ths to 7/8ths of an inch. They both function flawlessly but have crappy triggers. The .300WSM feels like it's about 10 lbs. and I'm currently replacing it with a Timney. The .223 has almost a two stage trigger it is so creepy. The new Hawkeye, as well as being sharp looking in a classic style (IMO), is supposed to have a new trigger design that eliminates these problems. There are cheaper guns that shoot as well and others with slicker actions but for overall accuracy, styling, finish, use of real metal instead of plastic I think the Rugers are the best value out there.
 
I was afraid to buy a Ruger M77 because of the horror stories on the internet. I have an Uncle who has one and is very happy with its accuracy. I took a chance, in my mind, and bought an All Weather M77 in 223 and I like it a lot. Shoots great, looks good, nice solid feeling synthetic stock that fits my hand, and great set of included rings and integral bases. Trigger was heavy, but I altered it.
 
Here is a list of Rugers I have owned over the last several years....

M77 VT 243
M77 270
M77 MKII VT 308
M77 MKII 6.5X55
M77 MKII 7X57
No.1 VT 22-250 (this one shot yellow box Remmy ammo into 1/2" @100 yds!)

All were bought used from here or from members here I know personally. All shot great! The only one that needed work was the 7X57 as it arrived with a home trigger job that was a mess, a quick trip to my smith made it the BEST trigger I have ever had. I do not own any of these rifles right now, but the way a few of them have made the rounds here on CGN, I am sure one of them will end in my gun room again in the future!

Personally, I love the Rugers. All metal, integrated bases with FREE rings, one of the best stocks in the industry, and they shoot! I have never experienced any of the horror stories that you hear about. Go ahead and buy one, I am sure you will love and if you don't, drop me a PM, maybe I can find a new home for it!!;)
 
I am a big Ruger fan for all of the reasons listed already. Rugged, durable, reliable, and no magazine to lose or forget in the truck/home. Plus the rifles fit me well.

I currently have stainless MKII's in .308win and 350 Rem Mag, and a new stainless Hawkeye in .358win. They all shoot better than I do.

Good luck!


James
 
The last time I looked at a Ruger rifle must have been over 5 years ago when I was looking for a .270 bolt gun. I felt the workmanship was very solid. Ruger rifles are typically half to one pound heavier than the ones I like and more importantly the stock didn’t fit me well. Don’t get me wrong I don’t hate Ruger as a brand. I own their hand guns.

It has, or had, a poor reputation on its trigger which easily translates to a $$ trigger job. Never had trigger job and don't knwo what they cost. Like some members have pointed out the newer models are now shipped with a better trigger.

From what I have heard, Ruger is pretty accurate but I am not sure it is as accurate as a Tikka or a Savage out of a box. From the ones you mentioned I recommend a Tikka.

Go shopping and enjoy! :):):)
 
Danny Boy said:
From what I have heard, Ruger is pretty accurate but I am not sure it is as accurate as a Tikka or a Savage out of a box. From the ones you mentioned I recommend a Tikka.
Click to expand...

the new ones are. all of mine are MOA capable with factory ammo and no load development, except for the new Frontier i got that i havent taken out to test fire yet.

the thing with Ruger is you just gotta go out and get one and decide for yourself. if you were to take the US forums at face value, you would think Ruger guns are garbage -- but this is because much of the widespread slagging of Ruger guns in the States is still because of Bill Ruger's political stance and 'the Ruger letter' on the high-capacity magazine issue. 3/4 of the people that openly slag them have probably never even owned a Ruger, but they heard that ole Bill was involved in taking away their beloved hi-cap mags so they slag the #%@$ out of the company any chance they get.... nevermind that the guy has been dead for 6 years and the Ruger letter was written back in 1989, people still slag his guns because of it :rolleyes:
 
Pros
CRF dependant on model (new are), All metal visually pleasing rifle(wood stocks)available in some nifty chamberings

Cons
Trigger will require work or replacement most likely

You wonder why they did that stuff
Investment cast vs forged reciever
slanted recoil lug

Ive owned rugers in the past just not now and have had good luck with them. If I was to buy american it would be kimber or ruger, however I have a CZ550 and Commercial FN 98 fetish
 
Last edited:
BwanaDave said:
Cons
Trigger will require work or replacement most likely

You wonder why they did that stuff
Investment cast vs forged reciever
slanted recoil lug
Click to expand...

the LC6 trigger is very good out of the box. i have no problems with mine, then again i might just have been lucky. i ordered a slightly lighter trigger spring for my M77 Mark II with the old Ruger trigger which improved it as well, it cost me a whole $3 from brownells.

Ruger is an industry leader in metal casting and has been perfecting it for decades. the cast vs forged receiver argument has also raged for decades - a google search will yield you several long threads on it. in all this time not a single person has been able to find one example of a Ruger M77 receiver failing because of a casting defect, out of the millions of rifles and handguns Ruger has sold. if the Ruger receivers and parts were forged, you would be paying $2000 for the Ruger guns and have no practical, real world advantage other than to be able to say 'i have a forged receiver'.
 
Gatehouse said:
I'd take a Ruger over a Savage, Tikka or Vanguard....

The Ruger is an accurate, tough, hunitng rifle.Can't say the same for the rest....
Click to expand...

x2 Of the factory offerings, I really like the Ruger (or Win M70s now that they are coming back, wish they had the old trigger though).
 
heres a longass thread on cast vs forged full of both fact and conjecture:

m-14forum.com/upload/showthread.php?t=25962

some quotes:

"In my experience I feel that investment casting as done at Ruger is far superior to forging because it reduces the stock removal necessary to make the finished part, and permits use of alloys which cannot be machined by common stock removal methods. Consequently, Ruger can use materials of a very low sulphur or selenium content with a high hardenability which provides greater tensile and compressive strength than the lower alloys other manufacturers much use because their manufacturing processes require use of additives like sulphur or selenium to obtain acceptable machinability. I feel that resulphurized steels should not be used in thin sections or in applications where extensive machining is required, because of their greater notch sensitivity."
Click to expand...

IIRC, Bill Ruger tested his Ruger 77 in .458 Winchester Magum by firing a round completely filled with Bullseye powder. The bolt seized, but the receiver did not fail. For those of you not familiar with reloading, Bullseye was the fastest burning smokeless powder available at that time.
Click to expand...
Something else to consider is the fact that investment casting to high quality is a process that didn't appear until well after the M14 had come into service. The ONLY way to make a receiver that strong was to forge it. Forgings were machining intensive, and used up cutting tools. The machines required skilled machinists as long as they were running. The idea of CNC and CAD/CAM was a science-fiction writer's dream in those times. One machine, one machinist, for the critical dimensions.

Today, the Investment casting process is a fact of life. It's strong, taking into account proper dimensioning, requires less finish machining, and is therefore less expensive. The fact that some dimensions had to be changed, due to the nature of the material, is a given. That manufacturers of scope rails and mounting systems stuck with the MilSpec dimensions is more their fault than the manufacturers of the receivers.

The question of ultimate strength comes up frequently in handgun discussions. While a comparable forging will win the ultimate strength contest, that's a mythical necessity. If forged frames were absolutely mandatory, why are there so many successful polymer framed pistols out there? Similiarly, if a forged receiver were a necessity, why are there so many successful cast receivers in use, many decades old?

Forging was the best of the best, in the 19th century.
Click to expand...


the basic conclusion of the thread is that a modern precision investment cast receiver, if done properly, can be just as good as a forged receiver. if done poorly, even a forged receiver can be much worse than an investment cast receiver. seeing as Ruger is an industry leader in metal casting and the M77 receiver has been proven safe since 1970, i dont think anyone needs to worry about the fact that the receivers are investment cast.

i find it funny that people complain about modern investment cast receivers but noone ever complains about modern receivers machined from bar stock which is a process that is vastly inferior to both cast and forged.
 
I believe the header was
You wonder why they did that stuff
I wasn't slagging investment casting just wondering why Ruger is the only manufacturer I know of using it to manufacture recievers, bottom line is its a cost cutting technique. A cast reciever can be as good but not superior to a forged reciever all things being equal. Investment casting has come a long way but so has low cost machining technology to precision machine forgings. I dont believe I said anything about them failing , but in the event of a catastrophic failure I would prefer the forged reciever.
Other manufacturers offer forged recievers that are every bit the equal and in my opinion some superior to the ruger for far less than 2000.00 and throw in a quality hammer forged barrel and superior trigger as well. But hey thats just my opinion. I have had good luck with ruger firearms and wouldnt hesitate to own another. Just thought I'd point that out.
 
just seemed like you were putting it down as a big negative, sorry.

the Ruger Hawkeyes and M77s give you more features, a better action and better fit and finish for the price than Remmy 700s, Savages, Tikkas, etc. if their precision investment casting process allows them to create a receiver that is just as strong as a forged receiver yet also save costs so that they can give the customer more for their money (included rings, nicer fit & finish and metal finishes like target gray) then that is, IMO, a good thing.

its not really right to compare them to 'forged' anyway - most receivers these days are milled from bar stock, which is an inferior process to either forged or modern investment cast so its all a moot point. i feel better buying a forged M1A receiver because the receiver was designed with forging in mind and many companies that churn out M1A clones these days arent exactly the most reputable and known for QC. however, the M77 action was designed from the ground up and thoroughly tested as an investment cast receiver.
 
I guess the old saying "to each his own" goes here as i would take the Ruger over any Tikka, Sako, Savage, etc. Someone mentioned the slanted recoil lug, etc. on the Ruger, have you seen the sako or tikka? The whole lug/shoulder area is held by 2 wood screws into the stock on the new Sako. For a short action caliber I would still take the Rem. 700 S.A.
 
Ben your right about each to his own and I agree that the ruger is a superior product to the rifles you mention, it wasn't my intention to slag Ruger but like most products there are some things that make you think it could have been done better or at least differently, people search out opinions on products here and providing them with some of our collective insight I'm sure helps many. That being said here is an alternative that makes a lot of sense to me, the same manufacturer uses forged square bridge recievers/ barrels / single set triggers and retain the C ring feature of the mauser action they were based upon with some improvements. I borrowed the pic off the real guns site and the link to the entire article is here http://www.realguns.com/archives/152.htm. I'm not advocating anyone buy this particular manufacturers product, I own some and am quite happy with them but offer it up as an illustration as to a possibly superior recoil lug arrangement to the ruger.
vgkhp3.gif
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom