Ruger M77 Mark II S/S SYN .270 Win {Reviews?}

P

PGKris

BANNED
BANNED
BANNED
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Does anyone have an opinion on this rifle? I have been wanting to buy a Tikka T3 lite Stainless in .270 Win but I have come across a used Ruger MK II S/S SYN in .270 Win for a better price.....are they comparable? The Ruger seems alright from the description on their website. It's not the Tikka that I've been salivating over, but it seems close and in the interest of saving a few dollars on both rifle and scope....it may be worthwhile. I have heard that the Ruger leaves something to be desired in the 'out-of-the-box accuracy' department

Opinions? Owned both? Likes/dislikes?

Thanks
Kris
 
rugers usually need trigger work as there ok to poor on the ones i have owned. t3's tend to be good out of the box. if the ruger is a good saving i would go for it. i own both and have a slight preference to the tikkas both are good but if you like removable mag then go for the tikka.
 
I like just about everything in the Tikka. The Ruger seems OK and at the savings.... :runaway: I'm not sure
 
go for the tikka if you like it. i have three and all will shoot under an inch with handloads. these are untuned rifles from the box. one was new and two i picked up used. all i did was adjust the trigger down to 2lbs, easily done with supplied allen key.
 
I had the same choices a few months ago, I went with the Ruger, yes the trigger is heavy and $50 later i had the trigger down to 3.5lbs from 7lbs, my Ruger is S/S M77 mkII 270win with a black laminated stock, I really like wood over plastic, 1.5" groups at 100yds with cheap win ammo and cheap federal. That's before the trigger job, haven't been to the range yet with the new trigger, but I don't think you could go wrong with either rifle, let your wallet decide
 
I would pick the rifle that shoulders the easiest and the crosshairs would be right there, I would pick the one that just feels right
 
Can't remark on the 270, but i bought a Mark II S/s synthetic 223 a few months back and really like the gun. The stock feels good in the hand, the gun is accurate, and I think the scope mount system and rings are excellent.
 
Grizzlypeg said:
Can't remark on the 270, but i bought a Mark II S/s synthetic 223 a few months back and really like the gun. The stock feels good in the hand, the gun is accurate, and I think the scope mount system and rings are excellent.
Click to expand...

How accurate? This is one of my major issues. I KNOW the Tikka shoots extremely well out of the box, but I know alomost nothing of the Ruger's out of the box accuracy.

(I do not handload)
 
In 223, it shoots 1.5" groups at 200 yards. A guy who handloads and has one, says his shoots 3/8" at 100.

I have to be honest, I was apprehensive about buying one because of all the bad things I'd heard about accuracy. On the other hand, my Uncle has one in 223 and has had it for a long time, and has made some phenomenal shots with it. Like foxes at 400-500 yards (sorry, my memory escapes me of the exact distance). Anyhow, its his go to gun and I know he doesn't like anything that doesn't shoot well, so I took a chance and am glad I did.

Lets hope someone else who has that exact gun pipes up. I think that's key to knowing what you are getting.
 
I have a Ruger MK-II 30-06 and I dont have much bad to say about it. The triggers are well known to be heavy but I replaced mine with a Timney and it shoots about a million times better. Mine a stainless synthetic as well. Stands up to the elements and accidents pretty good.
I wouldnt have second thoughts about buying another one in the future.
 
I have the Ruger Stainless Synthetic in 308, and it shoot great out of the box. Never actually measured shots on a target, but at 90yrds I can group my shots around the area of a twoonie. The trigger is very heavy, but I spoke with the Ruger warranty guy who happens to live near by, and he said he could lighten the trigger for me to about 3.5lbs without replacing it, and I could only imagine it getting better accuracy after that.

I too had a tough time deciding between the Ruger or Tikka at my local store, both were priced at $800 at the time, but finally chose the Ruger because I like the internal mag. I figure if I have the rifle with me, I have ALL of it, and would not have to worry about losing the mag. Also, having a plastic mag like the Tikka really turned me off. I know the plastic one is probably designed to be as durable as a metal one, but its just my feeling on it.

Pick which ever one you feel more comfortable holding, both are nice rifles.

Cheers!!
 
Last edited:
I have had a tikka, shot some tikkas, ad own a few rugers. I do not have one in 270, but do shoot a 280 on a regular basis. Heres the pros and cons in my eyes.

Ruger: Pros- Solid reliable design, all metal working parts, integral rings (one less reason to loose zero)

Cons- Trigger is crap, and tough to adjust unless you replace it, some actions seem to have a bit of slop.

Tikka: Pros- Smooth working action that feels like glass. Beautiful trigger (best factory setup there is right now IMO)

Cons - Plastic parts such as bolt shroud and magazine. High cost for replacemnt parts (price out a replacement mag and you will see what i mean) "Integral rings" are another purchase, and are not cheap.


This is how i see it. I would personally take the ruger, as i have never had a legitimate ##### about accuracy in any of my rugers that i couldnt solve. I would also take the money you were going to spend extra for the tikka and the scope bases/rings and put that towards quality glass or an aftermarket trigger on that ruger. You will be real happy with your new troy when all is done.
 
I have a tikka and I like it... but I also like rugers too.


The tikka definately has a smooth smooth bolt, but some parts of the gun is plastic and that can turn people off.

I settled on the tikka because it was the lightest gun there...

Save the money, go with the ruger, and put it towards a scope!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom