The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

bamaranger · October 31, 2013, 03:17 PM

Yeah, could well be a contract barrel. Cause for suspicion but not conviction. I'm not really sure when the switch to in house barrels occurred, maybe as late as the MkII 77. I dunno. But a contract barrel does not necessarily mean a bad barrel. Lots of early 77's shot fine.

Tip bedding I believe, can cure some stock/action bedding faults. Take away the tip hump, and things can get pretty loosey/goosey. I messed up a Mini-Mauser doing the same thing.

OP doesn't mention what group sizes he was getting, before or after. One of my Ruger books likely mentions when the barrel switch occurred, I may check later.

Overall, I liked the earyl 77's. Plain, simple.....good working man's rifle.

October 31, 2013, 03:17 PM	#10
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,302	chance Yeah, could well be a contract barrel. Cause for suspicion but not conviction. I'm not really sure when the switch to in house barrels occurred, maybe as late as the MkII 77. I dunno. But a contract barrel does not necessarily mean a bad barrel. Lots of early 77's shot fine. Tip bedding I believe, can cure some stock/action bedding faults. Take away the tip hump, and things can get pretty loosey/goosey. I messed up a Mini-Mauser doing the same thing. OP doesn't mention what group sizes he was getting, before or after. One of my Ruger books likely mentions when the barrel switch occurred, I may check later. Overall, I liked the earyl 77's. Plain, simple.....good working man's rifle.