PDA

View Full Version : Any problems with the newer Ruger M77 Mark 2 rifles?


Shooter11
December 12, 2005, 05:42 PM
I have been doing a lot of reading on the Ruger M77 Mark 2 rifles because I am thinking of buying one for varmint hunting. My father has a M77 Mark 2 in 30-06 and it is a good looking gun and seems to shoot good. However, we have never got down to shooting paper at 100 yards to see what kind of groups the gun is capable of. I am looking at the same model in the .223 caliber for varmint hunting. I have read in forums that the ruger M77 Mark 2 rifles are not very accurate and can not hold very tight 5 shot 100 yard groups. So of the guys here that owns or has owned this rifle what do you think of the M77 Mark 2 as far its "out of the box" accuracy? All input will be greatly appreciated.

Shooter11

1BadF350
December 12, 2005, 05:48 PM
I just posted yesterday about mine. At the 75 foot indoor range I'm all over the place. If I could go back in time and not buy this rifle I would.

k in AR
December 12, 2005, 07:38 PM
Generally I find the M77 MKII accuracy "just Ok" for hunting but that is about all. Add a Timney trigger and very carefully torque the action screws, get after market scope rings, and then she does pretty good on paper. Want target rifle??... keep going... but you'll need $$$

Personally, I feel Ruger is kind of like a pick-up truck. She will almost always be as stout as a mule and good to go for "general purpose" out of the show room.... but if you want to take her off road, or race her, you're going to have to fix her up a little.

gdm
December 12, 2005, 07:52 PM
I have a mark 2,.223 remington chamber.I havent had any problems with mine.theres different models to look at, they have a heavy barrel version and the regular barrel version, sights on the barrel and not sighted.

I musta got an oddity because it shoots pretty darn good off a bipod and /or a rest.seriously though, I have the plain version,no sights..just using the supplied rings and a scope with everything locktited down.I checked the barrel/wood gap on the stock and was pleased as this will affect accuracy. fit is superb.mine likes the blackhills vmax..light bullets,I think they are 51 grain(have to check,guns locked up for the winter) but you can go lighter in different brands as well as heavier...had an earlier 22-250 as well but like the safty on this mark 2 better.


when spring starts warming things up,I clean out the gunk from storage,run 4 shots through it quickly to get any remaining solvent out and clean it again using a dry patch only,check the accuracy with 1 shot strings(total of 4) and its yet to fail.


Its the only one I take when woodchucks start coming out longer and I need something in the 100-300 yard range.The triggers arent great but that shortfall is easily fixed.

Jaywalker
December 12, 2005, 08:03 PM
The most accurate rifle I ever owned was a Ruger M77 MkII in 6.5x55. The trigger needed work, of course, and I glass-bedded the fore-end, but otherwise it was factory stock. It averaged under an inch at 100 yards for five-shot groups, using a Weaver 4X scope. The barrel was as easy to clean up as a custom, needing only three patches - one dirty, one gray, and and one clean.

I didn't care for the rifle, but accuracy wasn't the issue. If you've been around them and don't have any problems with them, then you shouldn't have any problems.

Jaywalker

Iowa Cornfed
December 13, 2005, 12:44 AM
I've seen some of that stuff too, but can't say I know anyone first hand who's had any problems. (In fact jump on over to the Ruger forum and there's a ton of testimonials on some pretty fair accuracy - but bear in mind it is a Ruger form though..., I'm just saying....)

I've got a new M77 MKII in .300 mag and am real pleased with it. My brother-in-law hunts a lot of guided hunts, and told me about half the guides seem to pack a Ruger..., 'cuz they can count on 'em. :)

esldude
December 13, 2005, 12:55 AM
Well that seems the problem with Ruger. Some good, some bad, and a lot in the middle.

Get a Savage if you want an accurate inexpensive rifle. That accutrigger is nice too.

Tacoma
December 13, 2005, 07:51 AM
My Mk II in 223 is absolutely beautiful in fit and finsih. So far , I get about 2 MOA. I've only had it to the range a couple of times with a limited ammo seletion so can't say I've spent enough time with it. No doubt I could cut that group down if I did. Really like this gun!

p.s. My Savage 10FP shot MOA out of the box but weighed in considerably heavier. It was butt ugley too :rolleyes:

Jaywalker
December 13, 2005, 09:20 AM
It's easy enough to conclude that an average rifle will perform in an average manner, with some good, some not so good, and some middling - that's the bell curve, so it'll always be true, more or less. The problem I see with concluding that in the case of the Ruger M77 MkII is that I believe Ruger has improved the average a lot recently, particularly with their barrels. The average, for recent Ruger M77 MkII's, I believe, is better than the average in their past.

The fine barrel finishing I noticed is not likely to be a result of an average process - steps had to be taken to get it to that level. The mandrell they used in the hammer forging process could have been new, true, but I've read credible reports that other calibers (.284 and .308) have the same characteristics recently. I think Ruger's doing somethng specific - changing mandrells more often, for instance, or maintaining them better, or honing the bore, or some other positive step.

If true, I think the first step when discussing Ruger quality is to determine "how old is it?" My impression is that the barrels started improving in the early 90's when they started making their own instead of subcontracting them out. I heard about further dramatic improvement and bought mine about two or three years ago, but I can't say when it really "started."

Jaywalker

Art Eatman
December 13, 2005, 10:49 AM
I picked up a very-slightly-used Mk II in .223. Even before I put the Timney trigger in it, I was getting three-shot, half-MOA groups. The darned thing doesn't care what brand of ammo I feed it. Same groups whether 50-, 55- or short-nosed 70-grain.

Needless to say, I'm happy as a pig in...er, uh, a corncrib...

:), Art

Poodleshooter
December 13, 2005, 02:30 PM
I just posted yesterday about mine. At the 75 foot indoor range I'm all over the place. If I could go back in time and not buy this rifle I would.
I posted in your earlier thread. If you keep the rifle, try relieving the stock at the forend using a dremel or file. If you're uncomfortable with that, try restocking.

My early 90's vintage M77MkII had always been a "2-shot rifle". The first two shots were about 2", the rest were all over. I noticed that the stock forend had so much upward pressure on the barrel that it rubbed a shiny spot on the bottom of the barrel. After relieving the forend where it touched the barrel, I get groups in the 1.5-2" range consistently for 5 rounds rather than for 2 shots. It hasn't made it more accurate, but it has made it more consistent.

bgoldhunter
December 13, 2005, 06:12 PM
I also posted in the other thread. After a Timney and free-floating the barrel (with a B&C stock, which I think is much more comfortable than the original) it shoots less than .5 MOA.

I have a buddy with a tang safety Ruger, and his is just as accurate if not more so. The stock is also much more comfortable than the MKII's.

Tacoma
December 13, 2005, 06:48 PM
I've read ( on several other boards) that the MK II's often benifit from a barrel float. Mine will get one eventually.

Evan03
December 13, 2005, 07:22 PM
22/250 walnut blued tang safety varmiter 24" barrel
22/250 MKII stainles laminated sporter
220 m77 MKII vt
2506 M77 MKII walnut blued
3006 22" MKII
3006 22" MKII
300win tang safety.

might be a few others im forgeting ????? i love rugers all mine shoot. i reload for all of em and they just plain are the rifle for me.
some are box stock and some are tinkerd with.

they all pas my acuracy standerd with load developement.

keens
December 14, 2005, 08:24 AM
The following is what I would try with any Ruger rifle that was shooting poorly...Make sure the from diagonal action screw is tight, and the rear one as well, then make sure the screw right in front of the trigger gaurd is just barely tight enough to keep it in place...try three fingers only on the screwdriver. See what happens...maybe nothing, but I have heard this may help. An aquiantence tried it and it worked for him.

MADISON
December 14, 2005, 10:06 AM
I can not tell you aboout TODAY's MK-II's.
I have the following [Dates included]:

Ruger 1989 Ruger Ultra-Lite in .223 [Pencil thin barrel] that it took me 12 years to get it to shoot a 3/8 inch group. I had to take the velocity from 3200 down to 2600 and, now it shoots.

Ruger 1995 MK-II 77/22-Hornet. A Hornet is hard to get too shoot but, mine likes a max load of 9.7 grains of 2400 with a 45 grain bullet.

GhostRider32
December 14, 2005, 10:30 AM
Madison,

I had the same Hornet you have and man, it was horrible. I sent it back to Ruger and they replaced the whole gun. Bad thing is, the new one only shot a little better. I'm talking 1.5 to 2 inch groups at 50 yards benchrested with no appearant consistency or reason as to why it would do it. I tried different reloads, powders, bullets, primers...... nothing would help. I was so displeased with it that I told myself I'd never buy another Ruger rifle even though I love their pistols.

Things change and someday I may buy another MKII but I'll have to be convinced that they'll be as good as the Savages, Remingtons, Sakos ect...

Remmy
December 14, 2005, 11:23 AM
Not good, the only ruger long gun i may buy in the future would be a rimfire... I had a m77 .270 that was a pretty good looking gun like you say...terrible accuracy.

slinger70
December 19, 2005, 09:30 PM
1BadF350, what kind of ammo are you using? I have a compact in .308 with a Nikon Buckmaster scope. Shoots good enough to lay deer over if you ask me.

mak4824
December 19, 2005, 10:48 PM
I have a mkII in .30-06 and with three shot groups it is under an inch at 100 yards, (hornady custom 180 grain sst), however as a design, the barrel is not fully free floated so after it heats up the metal expands and causes the shots to "walk" away from the target( although i'd say they run) I love the gun and would buy another in a second, but I am going to have the trigger adjusted slightly ( heavy pull) and maybe sand the stock a little bit to fully float the barrel, I feel strongly that this gun can shoot 1/2 inch or better.

mak4824
December 19, 2005, 10:50 PM
I bought mine new in 2004 by the way

1BadF350
December 20, 2005, 07:04 AM
I was using Federal Sierra, High energy bla blah 200 grain something or other. Keep in mind I fired a box of 20 in a matter of about 30 minutes which may be my problem.

Poodleshooter
December 20, 2005, 04:03 PM
Yeah, my Ruger's real problem was that it hated fast groups from a warm barrel. Cold shots were always to initial POA. It was all of the following shots that went all over-until I freefloated it. Now it shoots a somewhat respectable warm barrel group.