PDA

View Full Version : Ruger Hawkeye -VS.- Winchester 70 (new FN)


oldcars
October 22, 2011, 02:42 PM
Hi, I have a friend who is not computer savy that wants to buy a new .243 bolt action rifle. He wants a short action, controlled round feed, claw extractor, and reasonably priced. All I can think of with all that is a Ruger Hawkeye or a New Winchester 70. How do these compare? accuracy and reliability are the most important factors, and a good trigger would be nice. He can get guns at dealer cost, so there is only about a $60 difference between the two. any ideas?

TX Hunter
October 22, 2011, 05:11 PM
Which ever one he likes best, they are both awesome!!!!;)

jmr40
October 22, 2011, 07:40 PM
Both are good guns, but the Winchester is better by a wide margin and at that price difference would be a no-brainer.

The Rugers are as tough as can be, have good scope mounts included in the price and would probably last a lifetime of abuse. They are a little rougher, as a rule a little less accurate, have below average triggers and are not as well finished.

The new Winchesters are awesome. The new triggers are among the best on production rifles, they feed slick, have a better designed safety switch, hold 1 more round in the magazine and are well finished. Since FN began production they have raised the bar for accuraccy in factory guns. My 308 is boringly accurate with anything I feed it.

Abel
October 22, 2011, 08:47 PM
but the Winchester is better by a wide margin

No, its not. Its better, yes. But not by a wide margin. They are comparable. I would love to have either.

tahoe2
October 22, 2011, 09:49 PM
I shot an old Ruger 77 tang safety many years ago that would cloverleaf 3 shots @ 100 yards in .257 Roberts. The action was smooth as silk and I would imagine the new technology Hawkeye to be as good or better. My neighbor has an M70 featherweight from that same era, and that rifle seems to be more refined in fit and finish (high luster blue & gorgeous wood with fleur de lis checkering). That M70 also groups well, 4 shots in 7/8" @ 100 with 145 grns in .284 winchester and a very slick action as well. I would pull for the winchester if it were me.

Vermonter
October 22, 2011, 10:04 PM
I have a 270 that almost makes me look like a good shot. Seriously it is as accurate as any gun in my hands will ever be.

quepasakimosabe
October 22, 2011, 10:23 PM
I dont know if it meets your specs (I think all are long actions) or price but another option is the CZ 550 model 04107. I like the set triggers, and the one I shot had a beautiful stock on it. It was so nice I would not want to hunt with it, I'd just hang it on the wall and take my savage out.

codyb1991
October 23, 2011, 12:42 AM
Win M70 is the way to go as far as your suggestions, I'd recommended a Remington 700 in .243, IMHO the rifle is superior. I don't care what ANYBODY has to say about the 700, it will group the same if not better than a M70.

.300 Weatherby Mag
October 23, 2011, 01:19 AM
I'd recommended a Remington 700 in .243

The OP asked for a rifle with controlled round feeding and a claw extractor neither of which the 700 has.....

.300 Weatherby Mag
October 23, 2011, 01:28 AM
there is only about a $60 difference between the two

Something to consider... You do not need to buy rings and bases for the Ruger... To buy high quality rings and bases for the model 70 you are looking at an additional $75+...

Lloyd Smale
October 23, 2011, 05:44 AM
Ill go this route. If a guy wanted say an o6 and bought 10 rugers and 10 winchesters id bet my last dollar that if you averaged the group size all 10 shot the winchesters would hands down outshoot the rugers. Before i get jumped on i know you have an accurate ruger so you dont need to post that yours shoots 1/2 groups. Im talking an average of 10 OUT OF THE BOX rifles. Only thing i question though is your price. The new winchesters are usually quite a bit more then a hawkeye.

jmr40
October 23, 2011, 07:40 AM
No, its not. Its better, yes. But not by a wide margin. They are comparable. I would love to have either.

I own both and can easily do a side by side comparison. It is better by a wide margin. The Ruger is a 1.5" gun. The Winchester is a .5"-.75" gun. The Ruger action is stiff, rough and gritty feeling. The Winchester feeds slick as snot and holds 1 more round in the magazine. The Ruger trigger has a lot of creep and breaks at 5 lbs. The Winchester trigger is a very crisp 3 lbs. Out of the box the Winchestert is 1/2 lb lighter, mine is closer to 1 full pound lighter because of the 22 oz. aftermarket McMillan Edge stock. No one offers a lightweigt aftermarket stock for a Ruger because of the angled bedding screw. There are limited options in aftermarket stocks for the Ruger, but all are heavier than factory.

I've owned about a dozen Rugers over the years including 3 of the newer Hawkeyes. The Hawkeye is the best of the Rugers. Owned about the same number of Winchesters and prior to FN taking over production I would have rated them about equal. FN has raised the bar and they are no longer in the same league.

Street prices in most gunshops have the Ruger $200-$400 cheaper depending on exactly which model you choose and Rugers do come with rings saving you about $50 more. If I were looking at saving that much money I'd have to give the Ruger serious consideration and spend some of the savings on either a trigger job or aftermarket trigger. I like Rugers quite a bit and they would be my 2nd choice. But at only $60 more for a Winchester, this is a no brainer.

xwe666
October 23, 2011, 08:34 AM
I own three of the new fn Mod 70 and I have no complaint, they are accurate and well made,so that would be my choice.

JohnO
October 23, 2011, 10:51 AM
Does anyone really think they will get a clear, concise answer when they ask questions like, which is better?:rolleyes:

Norrick
October 23, 2011, 03:00 PM
I've seen reviews of people saying the Ruger has a sticky bolt. Accuracy is hit or miss with Rugers in general.

I'd go for the FN honestly, all of browning/FN/winchester firearms are very well made/finished

dvdcrr
October 23, 2011, 07:51 PM
I would take an old M77 tang safety ruger right along with a new FN model 70, either one you pick. Maybe a slight advantage for the old Ruger with the adjustable trigger. Now on the other hand I would take the new Model 70 featherweight over the hawkeye or the Mark II. And I am a Ruger guy.

.300 Weatherby Mag
October 23, 2011, 09:21 PM
No one offers a lightweigt aftermarket stock for a Ruger because of the angled bedding screw. There are limited options in aftermarket stocks for the Ruger, but all are heavier than factory.


McMillan does.....:D

Check out the Mark II Classic and Mark II Hunter made for the Ruger...