View Full Version : Is talk of a Ruger M77 taboo here?
March 9, 2001, 09:56 PM
I never saw any reponse to my question on the M77. Is that a poor selection of rifle? Are lots of people ****** at Ruger for supporting the 10 round mags?
March 9, 2001, 10:39 PM
Ah, This thread, Anyone own a Ruger KM77 rifle. The varmit model? How does Ruger compare to Remington or Winchester model 70? Positives or negatives. Thanks.
I have one in .308 Win with a big old ugly Springfield 4x14x56 on top. It is quite a bit of fun to shoot but it it is not the first choice either. I really can find no fault with the rifle as purchased. It is a good shooter. I will have to admit that it has a better meat zero than a paper one however.:D here is mine
[Edited by HankL on 03-10-2001 at 08:22 AM]
March 9, 2001, 11:53 PM
A Ruger ain't no Dakota Arms, but there ain't a damn thing wrong with one. Hard to beat a Ruger for quality, features, accuracy, and price. And not bad lookin' to boot.
I'll keep buyin' 'em.
March 10, 2001, 12:00 AM
Bought one in .243 in 1971 or '72. Five-shot, 3/4" groups, "as is" with factory ammo. Middle or late 1970s, had a 77-heavy barrelled .220 Swift. Five-shot, 1/2" groups all the time.
Got a 77 Mk II in .223. Yucky trigger "as is", but a Timney took care of that. Always get 3-shot groups of 1/2" to 3/4", but I wear tri-focals these days...
March 10, 2001, 07:24 AM
I personally wouldn't buy another one but doesn't mean that they are bad guns. I have never been as fortunate as Art with the accuracy of the ones that I have shot. Most people probably don't buy them because of the sorry trigger and the odd angled bedding screw. With the remington or winchester you can adjust the factory trigger and the rifles are easy to bed. Although I prefer the winchester the remington is the most popular as far as accuracy is concerned. At least that was the case about five years ago.
March 10, 2001, 08:09 AM
I picked up an early M77 .270 from an estate sale. (NIB too!) beautiful blueing and wood.
I put a Leupold 3x9 on it, sighted it in, and shot a pronghorn with it.
I don't like the safety as well as a winchester 3-position or the rem but nothing wrong with the M77. Personally, I just won't buy new ruger anything, or S&W either.
March 10, 2001, 12:30 PM
I prefer the tang safety of the earlier M-77 to the Model 70-ish bolt shroud safety of the current M-77 MKII. I do, however, prefer the controlled feed action of the MKII to the older push-feed M-77. It is my opinion that angled front action screw (which pulls the action down AND back into the stock) is a good accuracy feature. The older M-77 featured an adjustable trigger. The current M-77 MKII does not (although, as Art mentioned, the available aftermarket Timney is quite good).
That said, both work fine.
I have seen (and have) Remington rifles that have difficult extraction with some surplus .308, however the Rugers gobble it up without complaint. Though I have never personally experienced a failure of the much-maligned Remington extractor, the Ruger's is a much more confidence inspiring set-up.
My favorite "do-it-all" rifle is a M-77 RSI on which the Gunsite Gunsmithy mounted a 2.75X Burris Scout Scope almost 20 years ago.
March 10, 2001, 05:18 PM
Hm Rosco, If the angled action screw is helpful to accuracy I wonder why the benchrest crowd doesn't use it.
March 11, 2001, 10:24 AM
Three years ago M77's were regularly trashed on the various web-boards for very poor accuracy, ugliness and terrible triggers. Now things have turned around and they are generally favorably reviewed. I'm not sure why the tides changed but I think M77's are very good rifles, particularly for the money. If they are nothing else they are extremely rugged and reliable. My All-weather 30.06 is also accurate at MOA with 180 factory Core-lokts.
I also note many (used to) complain and would detail the vast sums spent at the gunsmithy to get the gun accurate (often unsuccessfully) but no one seemed to return the rifle to the factory. Ruger has excellent factory service for free. Even if they don't make it a 1/4" rifle you still don't loose anything by returning it other than the money expended to ship it.
March 11, 2001, 03:22 PM
I just got a laminated stock .300 Win Mag. Haven't had a chance to shoot it yet, but have a friend that's got one and he loves it.
Best explaination I have seen on Rugers is at the Exploding Groundhogs site http://www.egpworld.com. Changes in barrel suppliers explain different opinions of accuracy.
March 11, 2001, 03:28 PM
I have a KM77VT MKII in 22-250. I had it out today for the first time since I suffered a series of retinal detachments to my dominant eye last summer. The rifle is better than I am. At 200 yards I was consistently in the 8, 9 & 10 rings which isn't bad since my eye is only corrected to 20/60 and even with the scope turned up to 16X I can't see the target clearly.
March 11, 2001, 04:12 PM
Nothing wrong with the Model 77. I saw your previous post, but mine is a '70s vintage chambered in 338, so I didn't respond. On a good day (no flinching :) ) with handloads, mine is capable of producing three shot groups in .800" to .900" vicinity. Like I say though, it's not a lot of fun benchresting it.
As others have said, I do prefer the older tang mounted safety over the newer wing style.
March 12, 2001, 02:54 PM
I really like the 77 for a hunting or general purpose rifle. It seems that the accuracy potential of the Rem. 700 makes it a better choice for extreme accuracy requirements, but I like the Ruger better for everything else.
I like the new Mark II safety and the trimmer action of the Mark II over the original Model 77. The magazine capacity was reduced by one round on the Mark II so the action could be shallower. It makes for a more petite rifle. The non-adjustable trigger on the Mark II is a disappointment though. It's not rough, just too heavy. Someday I'll get a Timney.
I had a great afternoon this weekend, shooting my 77MkII in .308 with some co-conspirators. We set up clay pigeons along a bank on the other side of a lake, previously paced off at 160 yards. I was firing from prone and sitting, with a variable cranked up to 5x and factory ammo. I had little problem whacking the 3" targets at that range, and I'm no sniper.
I really like the International model, with he Mannlicher style stock, and have always wanted one in .250 Savage.
March 12, 2001, 04:18 PM
I have a SS KM77VT MKII in 22-250. When I bought the rifle and subsequently brought it home, I realized I had overlooked something. The barrel was bent! (it took a keen eye to see it.) I had no way of knowing whether this was a factory defect or if some moron at the gun shop was using my rifle as a pry bar to open crates with.
Anyway, I sent the rifle back to Ruger with an explanation and they re-barreled my rifle with zero charge to me.
Along with their good CS, I really like the looks of the rifle and its performance. And I especially like the factory two-stage trigger.
I would buy another Ruger rifle. (although the Rem 700 is my fav.) :D
March 12, 2001, 08:17 PM
Of course, those benchresters also glue their actions to their stocks. While the angle-screw does help accuracy with the standard stocks, it also makes it much more difficult to bed properly. Not really a problem, if you want the advantages of a Ruger. Better yet, just use a real Mauser.
March 12, 2001, 08:23 PM
I have an M77 Mark II chambered in 7x57 Mauser and topped with a Leupold 3x9-40 VariX-II. I love this rifle! I appreciate it more each time I take it to the range. The trigger could certainly use some improvement. I still haven't found a pet factory load for it. Federal Classic and Hornady Custom loads seem to shoot the tightest groups. I am thinking of getting into handloading just to find the perfect deer load. The controlled round feed is a big plus, as is the Ruger reputation for building firearms as tough as tanks. My next rifle will be another Ruger.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.