Ruger M77/44 Review

ceb

ceb

CGN Regular
Rating - 98.8%
81   1   0
Ruger M77/44 Review

I've been thinking about getting one these for a while now and found this review over on the RugerForum.com site.

Details here:
http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-77-44.htm
_______________

I know that Ruger's first production seems to have been luck of the draw regarding accuracy.

Anyone had a chance to play with one yet?

What do you think about it?
 
I've had a 77/44 but sold it. Figure if you're gonna have/carry a full size 77 it might as well be in a rifle cartridge.... ;)

If you want one because it's not the run of the mill ctg in a bolt rifle or just because it's something different or a conversation piece, or if it just floats your boat then go for it.

2007-10-27_091302_1aCoffee.gif

NAA.
 
Always wanted one for deer but was scared of the range on the occasion that 125 YD + shots presented themselves. Neat gun but just didn't seem versatile enough the warrant that much cash.
 
Bought and sold, everybody should try a pistol cartridge rifle Ruger, Rossi or a Marlin, fun but for a while but for me it wore off .
 
If you are looking at a pure hunting rifle that might be used for 300 yard shots on a moose, this ain't it.

Deer below 100? No sweat.

I like it for comfort in black bear country. It is what, just over an inch longer than a 10/22? And less than a pound heavier? Very easy to carry up & down hills & through brush.

Fun to shoot but I do admit I don't really like the factory sights.
 
NAA said:
I've had a 77/44 but sold it. Figure if you're gonna have/carry a full size 77 it might as well be in a rifle cartridge.... ;)

If you want one because it's not the run of the mill ctg in a bolt rifle or just because it's something different or a conversation piece, or if it just floats your boat then go for it.

2007-10-27_091302_1aCoffee.gif

NAA.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I bought a .308 M77 RSI in lieu- same weight, far more range, far more power, and more readily available ammunition. People think a .44 Magnum must have lots of "knock down", when in reality I suspect its lethality is no better than and directly comparable to a .243. It is a weak cartridge by rifle standards, with abysmal range. I do appreciate it mates to a revolver slickly if you're out to make a combo.
 
I bought one and love it.

I wont carry if if I know where im going will have shots exceeding 75+m. My camp has plenty of watches where the shots rarely exceed 50m so Ive got lots of spots where its an ideal gun. Its lightweight, affordable to shoot, and fun. I also find .44mag to be very gentle on meat ie "you can eat right to the hole". This is important to me as a meat hunter first and foremost.

If I could find a 300gr hardcast loaded shell I would also use it on the watches noted above for moose.

2013-11-16091721_zps8c75c3e4.jpg
 
Ardent said:
Agreed, I bought a .308 M77 RSI in lieu- same weight, far more range, far more power, and more readily available ammunition. People think a .44 Magnum must have lots of "knock down", when in reality I suspect its lethality is no better than and directly comparable to a .243. It is a weak cartridge by rifle standards, with abysmal range. I do appreciate it mates to a revolver slickly if you're out to make a combo.
Click to expand...

The 77 RSI is nearly 2 pounds heavier than a 77/44.
 
HunterSon said:
The 77 RSI is nearly 2 pounds heavier than a 77/44.
Click to expand...

Ruger lists the 77/44 at 6lbs, and to be fair just double checked that review and he says it scaled 5 1/2. The 77RSI .308 weighs 6 3/4, note your point, but the spread certainly isn't much when essentially doubling the energy and tripling the available range. This all said, didn't realise it was that light, and I enjoy a nice light carbine as much as the next guy, especially if it's weatherproof. The .44 also has much less muzzle report than the .308, and this will be a benefit for many I'm sure.
 
Ruger lists the 77/44 at 5.25 pounds on their website. The 77 RSI stainless 308 lists at 7 pounds on Lipseys which is which my gunsite scout weighs. I can tell by holding both right now that the 44 feels much lighter than the 308. I am not disputing ballistics. The 44 just feels like a much smaller gun. I love both and really like the stainless RSI. It is on the someday list.
 
Cartridges are usually chosen for reasons other than maximum performance... otherwise we would be hunting grouse with a .375 H&H, whitetails with a .458 WM and spending hours in the gopher patch with a Weatherby of our choice at 100 grains of powder per pull. Yes a .308 is a more powerful cartridge than the .44 Mag... but there are hundreds with more power than the .308... so we all draw the line somewhere. For me, I must be concinced that my cartridge selection is decisively effective within its limits, and I accept the responsibility of adhering to those limits. The fact is that the .44 Mag is not a minimal cartridge for deer sized game... it is a sufficiently appropriate cartridge in the right circumstances... I am new to the 77/44, with only three ranges sessions under my belt and still in load development, but I am not new to the .44 cartridge for deer and black bear... properly loaded and used within its limits, it is a very effective and suitable selection... most of my experience is in the hard cast spectrum, but I am working up a load with the 225 FTX and it shows real promise... and thus far I have been very impressed with the M77/44... it is a smooth operating firearm and is comfortable to shoot, and thus far with good accuracy. These 225 FTX loads are also surprisingly potent, @ 1750 fps with a 3" kill zone radius, the zero is at 130 yards for an MPBR of 150 yards (with a +1.5" above bore scope)... surprised??? I was...
 
A light rifle on a caliber that has medium recoil is great to carry when one is doing some recon... But for bigger animals like moose, i like a heavier gun which helps tame the recoil a bit.
 
Highwind said:
A light rifle on a caliber that has medium recoil is great to carry when one is doing some recon... But for bigger animals like moose, i like a heavier gun which helps tame the recoil a bit.
Click to expand...

Except... this is not a ".44 for moose" thread... and the .44 Mag in a rifle would have to be considered light recoiling... specifically in the 77/44 recoil, even with the heavy loads I was shooting, was relatively negligible (compared to a medium recoil standard such at a .308 etc...). After 40 years of bowhunting bears, I am planning my first rifle bear this spring... and the 77/44 is on the short list.
 
I've gotta laugh...typical CGN thread. A truckload of true gun nuts, most of whom probably have dozens or more of assorted rifles, yet we hear a gun being lambasted due to "lack of versatility". Seriously? If I had only one gun, or only ten guns, then I would be concerned about maximum versatility and lethality of each one. I really doubt anyone buys a 77/44 because they think it's a great all-around hunting rifle. It's a toy, pure and simple...one that can certainly serve as a hunting rifle under the right conditions, which makes it an even better toy.:)

I had one of the original blue/walnut guns, and I loved it...but I just couldn't get it to shoot as well as I thought it should. I never thought of it as a big-game slayer...to me, it was a SuperUltraMaxiMegaMagnum rimfire. Anything that I could do with a .22lr, I could do with the .44...but with WAY more smiling, bigger holes, louder booms, and more general frivolity. If they bring them out with walnut again, or if someone offers a walnut aftermarket stock, I would get one again in a heartbeat. It would live in the safe next to my Ranch Hand and my Marlin 1894...a couple of other non-versatile and useless .44's that make me smile.

Oh, and Hoytcanon: A .44 magnum bolt gun for black bear over bait? Talk about a perfect choice! Screw versatility!
 
well for crying out loud, I bought an M77 44mag a real beauty at a gun auction, and yes I paid a way too much, haven't fired more than 2 or 3 shots since I got it, and now I think she's going up on the chopping block after reading this thread! Blued walnut. Any taker's? Thick wallet required!
 
Last edited:
jjohnwm said:
I've gotta laugh...typical CGN thread. A truckload of true gun nuts, most of whom probably have dozens or more of assorted rifles, yet we hear a gun being lambasted due to "lack of versatility". Seriously? If I had only one gun, or only ten guns, then I would be concerned about maximum versatility and lethality of each one. I really doubt anyone buys a 77/44 because they think it's a great all-around hunting rifle. It's a toy, pure and simple...one that can certainly serve as a hunting rifle under the right conditions, which makes it an even better toy.:)

I had one of the original blue/walnut guns, and I loved it...but I just couldn't get it to shoot as well as I thought it should. I never thought of it as a big-game slayer...to me, it was a SuperUltraMaxiMegaMagnum rimfire. Anything that I could do with a .22lr, I could do with the .44...but with WAY more smiling, bigger holes, louder booms, and more general frivolity. If they bring them out with walnut again, or if someone offers a walnut aftermarket stock, I would get one again in a heartbeat. It would live in the safe next to my Ranch Hand and my Marlin 1894...a couple of other non-versatile and useless .44's that make me smile.

Oh, and Hoytcanon: A .44 magnum bolt gun for black bear over bait? Talk about a perfect choice! Screw versatility!
Click to expand...

Perfect assessment amigo. I have owned both a Remington 788 and a stainless Ruger 77/44 and still kick my butt over letting the 788 go....for the THIRD time! The only buggaboo with the 788 was the shallow rifling that was unfavorable to cast boolits.
The Ruger stainless I had shot great with cast and was a great carry gun in wet conditions. I would gladly dump a blackie over bait with a .32-40 or .357 magnum, as well as with a .44 mag.:)
 
jjohnwm said:
I've gotta laugh...typical CGN thread. A truckload of true gun nuts, most of whom probably have dozens or more of assorted rifles, yet we hear a gun being lambasted due to "lack of versatility". Seriously? If I had only one gun, or only ten guns, then I would be concerned about maximum versatility and lethality of each one. I really doubt anyone buys a 77/44 because they think it's a great all-around hunting rifle. It's a toy, pure and simple...one that can certainly serve as a hunting rifle under the right conditions, which makes it an even better toy.:)

I had one of the original blue/walnut guns, and I loved it...but I just couldn't get it to shoot as well as I thought it should. I never thought of it as a big-game slayer...to me, it was a SuperUltraMaxiMegaMagnum rimfire. Anything that I could do with a .22lr, I could do with the .44...but with WAY more smiling, bigger holes, louder booms, and more general frivolity. If they bring them out with walnut again, or if someone offers a walnut aftermarket stock, I would get one again in a heartbeat. It would live in the safe next to my Ranch Hand and my Marlin 1894...a couple of other non-versatile and useless .44's that make me smile.

Oh, and Hoytcanon: A .44 magnum bolt gun for black bear over bait? Talk about a perfect choice! Screw versatility!
Click to expand...

Ruger made a special run of these this year. Check their website
http://www.ruger.com/products/rotaryMagazineDE/models.html
 
I owned the 77/357 and for the money I wasn't impressed with the stock, finish, and accuracy...

It is a nice light rifle, but as mentioned I'd rather have a little more range, and versatility.

I think a lever 45/70 is the way to go... ;)
 
Revlover said:
It is a nice light rifle, but as mentioned I'd rather have a little more range, and versatility.
I think a lever 45/70 is the way to go... ;)
Click to expand...

If range and versatility were what you wanted, then .357 Mag was not a good choice...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom