PDA

View Full Version : savage 11 lightwieght hunter vs Ruger m77 compact


Recoiljunky
June 28, 2011, 12:38 PM
Okay guys here's the scoop. I'm geting rid of my remy 700 and looking to replace it with a light small moderitly priced rifle. I came across the ruger m77 compact and the savage 11 lightwieght hunter both in 308win. The main perpos of the gun would be stalking deer through heavy palmetto brush and waist deep muck. Whitch would you get and why?



Thanks,
steve

PawPaw
June 28, 2011, 01:06 PM
Decisions, decisions. Let's look at your choices

I happen to own a Model 11 FNS and a Remington 700, both in .308. They're within an inch of one another in length. The Remington weighs 7.8 lbs set up for the field (scope, mounts, rings, strap and 4 rounds of ammo). The Savage, likewise set up, weighs 8 lbs, so that's a wash.

However, my rifle on the Savage site, shows a net weight of 6.5 lbs. The scope, mounts, rings, strap and ammo bring the weight to 8 lbs. That Model 11 Lightweight hunter you're looking at, shows a net weight of 5.5 lbs, and we can assume that all the accouterments will bring the weight up another 1.5 pounds, for a field weight of 7 lbs. Not bad at all.

The Ruger shows a net weight of 5.75 lbs, but you don't need mounts as the Ruger rings will suffice. Field ready it will weigh in about 7 lbs also.

Both are capable of acceptable field accuracy. They will weigh within ounces of one another when ready for the field. MSRP of the two are fairly similar and I'm sure that you can do better than MSRP.

So, the questions becomes: Which one do you like best?

ChrisJ715
June 28, 2011, 01:08 PM
All the Ruger's I've owned have been super reliable and accurate enough.

taylorce1
June 28, 2011, 01:14 PM
I've got a few Savage rifles and no Rugers. However, my buddy has the Laminate Compact in 7mm-08 and after handling and shooting it, I'd buy the Ruger. It is far quicker to shoulder and points better than any Savage I've ever held. Accuracy might not be as good as the Savage rifles, but the rifle I shot was hovering around 1" and always under 1.5". That makes it accurate enough to kill game at any distance I want to shoot. My vote is for the Ruger.

Recoiljunky
June 28, 2011, 01:49 PM
At pawpaw: non of the dealers around me stock eather so I don't have the luxury of feeling them. I've owned ruger revolvers but havnt had a savage. But I'm leaning more twards the ruger so far.

PawPaw
June 28, 2011, 02:22 PM
There is bound to be a Cabela's or Bass Pro Shops within an hour or two of Jupiter Florida. I'd bet that they'd have both Ruger and Savage rifles in stock.

Recoiljunky
June 28, 2011, 02:32 PM
Yes there are but they don't stock these perticular models. I asked them if they are going to in the near future and they said they dobt plan on it.

Doyle
June 28, 2011, 03:46 PM
If you want small and light, look also at the Remington Model 7. It is slimmer than the 700 and comes with a 20" bbl.

Recoiljunky
June 28, 2011, 08:38 PM
Wouldn't it be a downgrade to goto a model 7 from the 700

PawPaw
June 28, 2011, 08:52 PM
Wouldn't it be a downgrade to goto a model 7 from the 700

No, it wouldn't. I owned a Model 7 once upon a time, a rifle that I really liked. Lost it during a divorce and the subsequent financial dynamic. The Remington Model 7 is a fine rifle, designed strictly for short action cartridges. It weighs in at 6.5 lbs with either the CDL or the synthetic stock. MSRP of $702.00 for the synthetic, but the CDL is so pretty I might spring for the more expensive version.

I really liked my Model 7 and I regret losing it more than I regret losing my first wife. Mine was in 7mm-08 and shot Remington Core-Lokt 140 grain ammo so accurately that I never felt a need to reload for it. I shot everything with it, from deer to predators to crows. It never let me down, never failed me. With a 20" barrel is was short and light and wonderfully accurate.

I sure miss that rifle.

Doyle
June 28, 2011, 08:56 PM
+1 on what PawPaw said. Definately NOT a downgrade. In fact, they hold their prices much better than a 700. Custom versions will go for insane amounts of cash. They are a slimmer, lighter version so you won't find them chambered in any of the longer calibers. Mine is the older style with the 18 1/2" bbl. It looses a tad in velocity due to the 1 1/2" less barrel length as opposed to the 20" but I don't really notice. Mine is in .260 and is accurate way more accurate than I am.

Recoiljunky
June 28, 2011, 10:05 PM
I'm gonna loon more into the model 7 but tge extra pound is detering

tobnpr
June 29, 2011, 02:56 PM
I might be bit off the mark here with a scout setup, but since you're looking for a true brush gun...

Have you considered the Ruger Gunsite Scout? Short barrel length makes it an ideal brush/truck/ all-purpose rifle.

603Country
June 29, 2011, 03:09 PM
At the risk of overdoing my praise for the Ruger Compact, I'll say again how much I like it. It shoots really well, and it's so light that more and more I find myself leaving the Sako and taking the Ruger. Mine is in 260, so the recoil isn't bad, though I do only shoot a medium load. I bought it off a buddy, so I don't know what he might have done to the trigger, but whatever he did or had done was perfect. I think that's my rifle for when I'm too old or weak to drag the Sako to the stand. And...it's a pretty little rifle and feels great in my hands.

Recoiljunky
June 29, 2011, 08:15 PM
The scout seems more like a tactical rifle than a brush gun plus why would you need 10 rounds to stalk a deer and the flash hider on it would make it to louder than my gf's nagging.

Rob3
June 29, 2011, 09:05 PM
Since you are looking at a .308 you might look at the Ruger Compact Magnum in .308. It has a really nice re-enforced stock, iron sights, 20" barrel and slightly shortened LOP. It's one of the few rifles that comes with decent sights, plus comes with scope rings as well.

Recoiljunky
July 3, 2011, 11:53 AM
I think I'm gonna chose the ruger I found out the dealer cost for it is 550 so I can get it for 600. When I get the rifle I'll make a review for it.

m&p45acp10+1
July 3, 2011, 12:36 PM
Call me the odd ball here. I see brush, and waist deep muck stated, as well as reduced weight. I say short lever action in .30-30 Win. Perfect for heavy brush and muck. Will kill any deer that walks if you hit it in the correct spot.


Also used 30-30's usualy scoped go for resonable prices in most pawn shops.

PawPaw
July 3, 2011, 12:58 PM
Call me the odd ball here. I see brush, and waist deep muck stated, as well as reduced weight. I say short lever action in .30-30 Win. Perfect for heavy brush and muck. Will kill any deer that walks if you hit it in the correct spot.

He never asked about levers or I would have talked about them.

For heavy brush and waist-deep muck (sounds like my stomping grounds in Louisiana), a lever gun is probably the perfect medicine for what ails you. The problem with the lever gun is the current fad for long-range riflery. Everyone wants a gun capable of sub MOA groups at 500 yards, when most of the whitetail deer in the United States are shot at ranges under 100 yards.

At 5.5 lbs ready for the field, the .30-30 lever action is arguably one of the best rifles for the conditions stated. One of the problems with it is the front bead iron sight. The bead on my rifle subtends 10 inches at 100 yards. That's not a problem when you're shooting at something large and close; simply put the bead on the target and fire the rifle. However, for longer range, that big bead takes up a lot of the target. I was shooting at a 20 inch gong with my .30-30 last week. At two hundred yards I had trouble seeing the target and was only hitting it about half the time. Shooting at the same gong at 100 yards was very easy and I was making hits for about 4MOA, which is perfectly capable of taking deer and hogs.

There is a lot to like about a levergun.

Jim243
July 3, 2011, 01:18 PM
THE brush and muck gun.

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt284/bigjim_02/SAM_0319.jpg

Jim

Recoiljunky
July 3, 2011, 02:09 PM
I already have a marlin 1894 in 44mag that can group under an inch at 100 but I want something to put a scope on and still be lite

dgludwig
July 3, 2011, 03:53 PM
The Ruger MKII International model, chambered in .308 Winchester, topped with a quality 1.5x5X scope, would make for a good set-up meeting the op's needs/wants.

Doyle
July 3, 2011, 04:57 PM
Call me the odd ball here. I see brush, and waist deep muck stated, as well as reduced weight. I say short lever action in .30-30 Win. Perfect for heavy brush and muck. Will kill any deer that walks if you hit it in the correct spot.

I had one. Worked great until my ONLY shot at a doe one year (we have a very short doe season) was at 300 yds. Before the next season, I sold it and bought a Rem Model 7 .260. Same length. Same weight. FAR greater accuracy.

mdd
July 3, 2011, 07:16 PM
I read this thread earlier today and a question has been on my mind ever since. Why in the world would anybody slop through waist deep muck in a swamp just to shoot a deer? Honestly I can't fathom going through that for some venison. Come drive around in KS. Soon enough you'll hit one with your car or truck. Much less work.

Recoiljunky
July 3, 2011, 07:42 PM
Because in south Florida that's the only terain. We dont have the luxury of open fields of hard ground unless it's spring during turkey season

mdd
July 3, 2011, 07:49 PM
That would suck. But then we all have our geographical crosses to bear, so to speak. I'm guessing you never see -20*F with a wind chill of -60*F in the winter either in S. Florida. I don't care for venison enough to wade through your swamps or hunt in my ridiculous cold anyway. Last deer I got was a six point buck. Hit him almost perfect...with my wife's Jetta. That was an expensive deer.

And to keep this on track, I voted for the ruger. No surprise there for anyone who's read any of my posts.

Recoiljunky
July 3, 2011, 07:57 PM
To be honest I've never seen snow but would make an interesting hunt to go in the snow just because I wouldn't beable to expect what to expect. And my dealer said the rifle was 2 weeks out so I'll give me rage report when it comes

dgludwig
July 4, 2011, 11:45 AM
so I'll give me rage report when it comes

I guess it doesn't take much to make you mad...:D

jmr40
July 4, 2011, 04:07 PM
At 5.5 lbs ready for the field, the .30-30 lever action is arguably one of the best rifles for the conditions stated.

I have more than a dozen leverguns in assorted calibers. The lightest 30-30 is a 16" trapper model that weighs 6.5 lbs unloaded and with a mag full of ammo and strap is well over 7 lbs. Add about 1/2 lb to that for a standard 20" barrel. A levergun in 30-30 may well be a fine choice and one that I like, but they are NOT very light.

I own several bolt rifles in 308 that weigh between 5.75-6.5 lbs including scopes and mounts. A bolt rifle will do anything a levergun will, but with more accuracy, power, range, reliability, and with less weight and cost if you choose carefully.

GeauxTide
July 4, 2011, 09:38 PM
I voted for the Ruger. I own both. The Ruger Compact is in 260 - a dream to handle and shoot. My Savage is an 11 Weather Warrior in 260, so it's heavier. If the Savage LW comes with Accutrigger and Accustock, get the Savage. The first six rounds out of mine were 1.2" - three in .570 and three in .679. One other consideration is the GSR Scout Ruger. If you're in the woods, the military style open sights would be the ticket.

jimbob86
July 4, 2011, 09:55 PM
Call me the odd ball here. I see brush, and waist deep muck stated, as well as reduced weight. I say short lever action in .30-30 Win. Perfect for heavy brush and muck. Will kill any deer that walks if you hit it in the correct spot.

Muck. Mr. Murphy. ...... A levergun is much harder to clean, IMHO.

If it were not for the weight, I'd vote for the Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle..... there are lighter versions of the same gun ....so I'll take the Ruger 77.