Ruger: M77 ( Hawkeye) vs American
- Thread starter powdergun
- Start date
yeah an i know a few dudes who all got into the hunting side , undertook a few years of hunting an then life changed for whatever reason, gun got sold or a friend would end up with it.
they are perfect for 'getting into it' , especially without too much input financially- save a few dollars here goes a long way for fuel or ammo as someone else has said.
definatly all seem well an truely accurate enough too mind you hey
Mid century ease of manufacturing oriented designs were remington 700's, even I would take one of those over a ruger american.
The t3 is a budget rifle designed for ease of manufacturing and its just extremely well made. The prices new ones fetch is crazy, but when you look at the cost of a gen 2 american they seem like a great deal.
Upgrading to a Tikka from a savage/ruger is like trading in your Kia for a Honda civic
You either live long enough to become a Fudd, or give in to spiral ceracoted muzzle brake abortions I guess.
I really believe guns styled like the axis 2 and American gen 2 will be looked at by future generations like I look at dramatic monte Carl, square rosewood fore end tip rifles boomers like. ####ing ugly as sin both
The t3 is a budget rifle designed for ease of manufacturing and its just extremely well made. The prices new ones fetch is crazy, but when you look at the cost of a gen 2 american they seem like a great deal.
Upgrading to a Tikka from a savage/ruger is like trading in your Kia for a Honda civic
You either live long enough to become a Fudd, or give in to spiral ceracoted muzzle brake abortions I guess.
I really believe guns styled like the axis 2 and American gen 2 will be looked at by future generations like I look at dramatic monte Carl, square rosewood fore end tip rifles boomers like. ####ing ugly as sin both
The Ruger Americans I have (several Gen 1 in 223) all work very well and are accurate. Their weak points are the bolt release lever and spring and the extractors- both of which are very robust on the 77's.
To be fair, neither of these weak points will lead to actual failures until they have run through thousands of rounds of ammunition.
I would take an American over an Axis. Good chance I'd take an American over a Tikka, too.
The Gen 1 rifles I have were very affordable. I'm a little surprised by the price of the Gen 2 versions.
To be fair, neither of these weak points will lead to actual failures until they have run through thousands of rounds of ammunition.
I would take an American over an Axis. Good chance I'd take an American over a Tikka, too.
The Gen 1 rifles I have were very affordable. I'm a little surprised by the price of the Gen 2 versions.
When it comes to guns, most consumers are DUMB and CHEAP. You are right - very right.
I own LH Ruger 77 Mk II rifles, now customized to other chamberings and configurations, and would not hesitate to own more and keep them original, have owned a couple of LH Ruger Hawkeyes, and while I do not own, or plan to own an American, I have shot them.
I prefer the older Mk IIs, and honestly for the right handed rifles (me being a lefty) liked the older Mk I's as they had the tang safety that is more user friendly to a lefty using a right handed rifle, as compared to the newer versions with the 3 position wing safety. Just my opinion.
I too agree that the older Ruger were better fit and finish to the Hawkeye. (Guess I am getting pickier as I get older!) While some said the LC6 trigger fo the Hawkeye was an improvement over the Mk II, I never noticed, as I had the triggers adjusted to 3 lbs and smoothed up for improved crispness and less creep/over travel. They still shot well, but cannot say that they (Hawkeyes) were any more accurate, or better performers velocity wise, on average than the older rifles.
The Americans I shot performed well, accuracy and velocity-wise. But they are lower price point firearms, and the stocks, fit and finish overall reflected this. The triggers are not as nice. Will they provide adequate service and performance for the average hunter over many years; Yes, I believe so. And one may not be so careful with the synthetic stock and coatings that mitigate corrosion, and therefore they may get banged around and abused more, than a ncer firearm.
Will they be a rifle that many would be want to be able to hand to down through the generations with pride? No, I do not think they would fit this category as well as a Hawkeye, or even better the older Mk I or IIs.
Sorry, I have not shot the Gen 2, so cannot comment on them from a personal perspective. Nor have I handled one. They do look better though. Do they report them to be improved; Yes.
While I may have looked at them more when I was younger and had limited incomes and means to allow affording better quality rifles, I have always preferred finer quality firearms, even if they may have been Rugers, Remingtons and Winchesters, and not Sakos, Sauers, etc. and while I do not mean to to be a rifle snob, I have never been a fan of the Savage and Mossberg bolt action rifles. Just my opinion, but they just did not seem to have those clean classic lines of the Remingtons, Winchesters, and Rugers! Nor did they feel, handle or balance as nice, for me.
Today, I am lucky that I can afford better quality firearms,or custom rifles to get what I want for features and benefits, or better quality wood on the factory rifles I buy. So, again, if I was buying today, I would still be looking for an older LH Model 77 Mk II. But that is just me!
I prefer the older Mk IIs, and honestly for the right handed rifles (me being a lefty) liked the older Mk I's as they had the tang safety that is more user friendly to a lefty using a right handed rifle, as compared to the newer versions with the 3 position wing safety. Just my opinion.
I too agree that the older Ruger were better fit and finish to the Hawkeye. (Guess I am getting pickier as I get older!) While some said the LC6 trigger fo the Hawkeye was an improvement over the Mk II, I never noticed, as I had the triggers adjusted to 3 lbs and smoothed up for improved crispness and less creep/over travel. They still shot well, but cannot say that they (Hawkeyes) were any more accurate, or better performers velocity wise, on average than the older rifles.
The Americans I shot performed well, accuracy and velocity-wise. But they are lower price point firearms, and the stocks, fit and finish overall reflected this. The triggers are not as nice. Will they provide adequate service and performance for the average hunter over many years; Yes, I believe so. And one may not be so careful with the synthetic stock and coatings that mitigate corrosion, and therefore they may get banged around and abused more, than a ncer firearm.
Will they be a rifle that many would be want to be able to hand to down through the generations with pride? No, I do not think they would fit this category as well as a Hawkeye, or even better the older Mk I or IIs.
Sorry, I have not shot the Gen 2, so cannot comment on them from a personal perspective. Nor have I handled one. They do look better though. Do they report them to be improved; Yes.
While I may have looked at them more when I was younger and had limited incomes and means to allow affording better quality rifles, I have always preferred finer quality firearms, even if they may have been Rugers, Remingtons and Winchesters, and not Sakos, Sauers, etc. and while I do not mean to to be a rifle snob, I have never been a fan of the Savage and Mossberg bolt action rifles. Just my opinion, but they just did not seem to have those clean classic lines of the Remingtons, Winchesters, and Rugers! Nor did they feel, handle or balance as nice, for me.
Today, I am lucky that I can afford better quality firearms,or custom rifles to get what I want for features and benefits, or better quality wood on the factory rifles I buy. So, again, if I was buying today, I would still be looking for an older LH Model 77 Mk II. But that is just me!
Spend $2000+ on a rifle to use MAYBE 2 weeks out of the year or spend $600-800... for something this is AS accurate and will get the job done is actually pretty good financial sense... not everyone is a shooter... nor financially well off to be able to afford hunting and an expensive gun... nothing wrong with a Ruger American, it is priced to be competitive... although recent economic realities have pushed the Gen2 out of the budget rifle king slot it once held... now that is replaced buy the exact gun... sold by Genfield.
Yeah, Ruger was forced to start marketing functional but ugly Americans because the Hawkeye/77 was simply becoming too expensive to be attractive to the budget-rifle crowd. Then they made the American Gen2 even uglier and bumped up its price, but started to sell off all the older Gen1 American by re-branding them as Glenfields, much like Savage once sold the budget Stevens 200 as a way to use up all the older model110 non-accutrigger guns. The 200's disappeared a few years later after all the old parts stock was used up, replaced by the Axis plastic-craptastic models. Same thing will happen with the Glenfields.
Just wait a couple more years. Ruger will introduce an even-cheaper, even-uglier gun as a super-ultra-low-budget alternative to the Glenfield. One-piece injection-molded polymer stock/receiver/barrel; 3 moving parts; will sell for a lower price than anything else on the market. It'll be the hunting rifle equivalent of the old Saturday Night Special cheapo handguns; designed to last for a few shots, essentially disposable, a sort of "Opening Day Special"...a "Ruger Axis".
They'll call it the "Canadian".
Just wait a couple more years. Ruger will introduce an even-cheaper, even-uglier gun as a super-ultra-low-budget alternative to the Glenfield. One-piece injection-molded polymer stock/receiver/barrel; 3 moving parts; will sell for a lower price than anything else on the market. It'll be the hunting rifle equivalent of the old Saturday Night Special cheapo handguns; designed to last for a few shots, essentially disposable, a sort of "Opening Day Special"...a "Ruger Axis".
They'll call it the "Canadian".
The 77 lime wasn’t perfect but was pretty close and I consider the many versions of them in a positive light.
They hold and provide fair value, a quality rifle.
The Ruger American Gen1 I had was less than.
It was affordable (cheap), accurate and looked good but it didn’t feed reliably and the bolt manipulation was heavy and rough.
If budget drives the purchase I prefer the 783 over the American in just about every way…Aesthetically I’ll give it to the Ruger as the bolt shroud on the 783 is just hideous IMO (but it is metal…).
The thing is though it is a budget gun design but no longer sells at a budget price point.
Ruger’s marketing was very successful with the American and they have been able to elevate their prices above entry level to the point that there costs are basically on par with better rifles so to me their value proposition is out the window.
As for durability just about any rifle cared for will last and any rifle abused won’t.
But a cared for rifle that lasts but is a PITA to use and doesn’t feed is not something that I want in my journey thank you very much.
Also, I don’t think the American killed the 77, far from it.
The American was/is the lifeboat for Ruger to continue existing as a manufacturer…
What killed the 77 is the declining financial position of the majority of the consumers; personal debt is through the roof…it’s not that they don’t want something bespoke but it’s simply unattainable given their financial position.
Every manufacturer is every sector has had to grapple with this in some way and if you want to be a volume manufacturer then you have to offer your product at a price point the consumer finds value in and the American is Ruger’s answer to this.
All my opinion, YMMV.
They hold and provide fair value, a quality rifle.
The Ruger American Gen1 I had was less than.
It was affordable (cheap), accurate and looked good but it didn’t feed reliably and the bolt manipulation was heavy and rough.
If budget drives the purchase I prefer the 783 over the American in just about every way…Aesthetically I’ll give it to the Ruger as the bolt shroud on the 783 is just hideous IMO (but it is metal…).
The thing is though it is a budget gun design but no longer sells at a budget price point.
Ruger’s marketing was very successful with the American and they have been able to elevate their prices above entry level to the point that there costs are basically on par with better rifles so to me their value proposition is out the window.
As for durability just about any rifle cared for will last and any rifle abused won’t.
But a cared for rifle that lasts but is a PITA to use and doesn’t feed is not something that I want in my journey thank you very much.
Also, I don’t think the American killed the 77, far from it.
The American was/is the lifeboat for Ruger to continue existing as a manufacturer…
What killed the 77 is the declining financial position of the majority of the consumers; personal debt is through the roof…it’s not that they don’t want something bespoke but it’s simply unattainable given their financial position.
Every manufacturer is every sector has had to grapple with this in some way and if you want to be a volume manufacturer then you have to offer your product at a price point the consumer finds value in and the American is Ruger’s answer to this.
All my opinion, YMMV.
Several in our camp have Savage/Stevens 200’s as backups. They rival the Savage 110/111/114/116’s of the Indian Head logo era in terms of fit, function and accuracy. Not pretty, but pretty cheap at the time and somewhat still cheap used comparative to costs of what entry level is by today’s standards.
I’d certainly jump at or take a Rem78 or Stevens 200 over some of the current batch of “entry level” units offered today at the lower cost knowing what I know about them. In the very least the difference in $$$ could always be added into a quality optic (if you don’t have one avail) and you’d have a low cost “hidden gem” of a backup to say the least.
