Ruger M77 - What size rings for 2-7x32mm scope?

[hoytcanon]

Thanks again, it is very appreciated. Will the rings be marked so that I know?

Not from 1991... they started marking the ring numbers on the rings around 2005. I will put the calipers on them when I get home tonight.

 

[hoytcanon]

It's not always the objective to barrel clearance you need to worry about with M77s when trying to mount low as possible, it's the bolt handle clearance to the eyepiece/ocular.

With hundreds of set-ups, I have never had bolt to bell contact... not while using Ruger rings, which I prefer to the Leupold rings

 

[The Kurgan]

Do you know when Ruger began making their own barrels? I am assuming that my 1991 will have a Ruger barrel?

 

[WhelanLad]

better angle, this is a medium set up i believe. on the hawkeye tho might be a 3-4 combo?

 

[Sun_and_Steel_77]

With hundreds of set-ups, I have never had bolt to bell contact... not while using Ruger rings, which I prefer to the Leupold rings

I've seen photos of your preferred centerfire set-up consisting of a VX-3 2.5x8x36mm in Ruger rings many times and it's a great combo.
When you will most definitely experience bolt knob to ocular/eyepiece clearance issues is with the Leupold 1" lows and Japanese/European optics with bulky oculars.
As you can see from the photos you absolutely will contact with say a Zeiss or a Bushnell Elite.

I'm simply showing the OP the lowest and lightest rings available for an M77 with his VX-2 2-7x33 optic of choice (which just happens to be my exact optic)...there's certainly more than one way to skin a cat.

BTW Hoyt...I'm curious as to why you would prefer the rough cast Hawkeye/MKII ring to the machined billet steel Leupolds? Purely aesthetic reasons?.
I get it if we're talking polished blue MKII which are beautiful.

 

[hoytcanon]

I've seen photos of your preferred centerfire set-up consisting of a VX-3 2.5x8x36mm in Ruger rings many times and it's a great combo.
When you will most definitely experience bolt knob to ocular/eyepiece clearance issues is with the Leupold 1" lows and Japanese/European optics with bulky oculars.
As you can see from the photos you absolutely will contact with say a Zeiss or a Bushnell Elite.

I'm simply showing the OP the lowest and lightest rings available for an M77 with his VX-2 2-7x33 optic of choice (which just happens to be my exact optic)...there's certainly more than one way to skin a cat.

BTW Hoyt...I'm curious as to why you would prefer the rough cast Hawkeye/MKII ring to the machined billet steel Leupolds? Purely aesthetic reasons?.
I get it if we're talking polished blue MKII which are beautiful.

As I said, I don't use the Leupold rings so can't really speak to the lows contacting the ocular bell, particularly with bulkier low-end optics wearing Butler Creek covers... but I have never run into this with Leupold scopes in the M77 Low 3/4 set or on the 77/44 & 77/22 with the 3/3 set. With regard to Ruger rings, they are a bit of a PITA to get leveled as they can turn in the ring as you tighten down, even going slow and laterally,but once locked in, they are absolutely solid. As for the finish, I do not own Hawkeye rifles, I really dislike Ruger's Matte finishes, both black and silver... but the true blued & polished stainless rings on my No.1's and Mark II's are very nice, and IMO the best option on these rifles. Just an opinion though.

 

[The Kurgan]

I plan to mount a Bushnell Elite 3500 2-7x32.

I will most certainly experiment with both ring sizes, but I think the Ruger #3/4 will certainly be the preferred option for me.

 

[Sun_and_Steel_77]

I plan to mount a Bushnell Elite 3500 2-7x32.

I will most certainly experiment with both ring sizes, but I think the Ruger #3/4 will certainly be the preferred option for me.

Good choice!

 

[medvedqc]

You will want the height that fits you properly. The size of the obj lens doesn’t make any difference, the crosshairs are the same birth in all 1” tube scopes. Yes, the lower scopes make your setup more compact, but do you want to be bendinding your neck to get you eye that low?

It is absolutely possible to go too low.

and it may be wrong for that depending on the body or own neck adjustment ....

 

[hoytcanon]

#3 = 0.323"
#4 = 0.436"
#5 = 0.568"

Don't have a #6, but it stands to reason it will be 0.6XX"

 

[The Kurgan]

Outstanding. Thank you. I will measure when I receive the rings.

 

[The Kurgan]

Rifle is truly new (late 1990). It's a beauty!! Pics later

Rings:



Definitely #3B/#4B.
Unfortunately, crappy soft slotted screws. Will be replacing those ASAP.

 

[The Kurgan]

Serial ... Late 1990 production, but shipped in 1991.

 

[The Kurgan]

Some crappy pics for now, camera does not do it justice. Brand new...





View attachment 505010

 

[The Kurgan]

...

 

[The Kurgan]

Polished, deep blue...

 

[bunny]

I was minutes away from buying this rifle, going though these posts is depressing!

 

[The Kurgan]

I think these are the correct rings...

 

[The Kurgan]

Took a few better pics. If she shoots as good as she looks and feels, she'll be a keeper!!

 

[The Kurgan]

BTW, I need torx screws for the Ruger rings. Seems hard to find.