M77 Ruger Owners Advice

[warbirdlover]

Hopefully I can save some of you some headaches when mounting a scope on your M77.

I had the original Ruger (medium) rings on for 15 years with my 3-9 X 40 Nikon Monarch. Not once over that did I ever lose zero or have to adjust it (checking it every fall). Not once.

I bought a new scope (4-16AO X 50) which need high rings. The Ruger rings are super expensive so I tried Millett rings. They worked okay but when tightened "tilted" forward (front ring) and dinged my new scope. I tried Redfield rings and the screws broke (made in China) and ditched them. So I still was too cheap and bought Leupold rings which looked identical to the Rugers and were cheaper. I tightened the base screws and wiggled and tightened over and over before mounting the scope to the rings. It seemed really solid. Today I went to finish sighting in after bore sighting and the first two shots were grouped tight above the bull 6". I lowered them down and the next shot went 8" left? I grabbed the scope and it was loose! The front ring loosened from the base from firing (.300 Win Mag)! I tightened it with a quarter and all went back to normal. A guy on the bench next to me had a screwdriver that I borrowed and I got another 1/8 turn tighter on both rings base screws. Then I finished sighting in. My rifle went back to it's tackhammer characteristics and I came home with a sore shoulder from shooting way more rounds then should have been necessary.

Moral of the story. Always buy Ruger rings for M77 rifles and don't be cheap like me. They are FAR superior to even the Leupold rings.

;)

[TXGunNut]

Yes, but my last set needed a rather aggressive lapping session to keep from damaging my scope.

[rbursek]

It is called LocTight for screws.

[TX Hunter]

You dont need Locktight with original Ruger Rings they are that good.

[warbirdlover]

It is called LocTight for screws.

I've always used this stuff in the over 40+ years I've mounted scopes. We are all not idiots in this forum. It was not due to no loctite. It was due to the "clamp" part of the rings not "seating" on the receiver base consistently, even after tightening and shaking, tightening and shaking repeatedly before I mounted the scope in the rings. They were tight! The recoil from the .300 mag. was apparently enough to loosen (shift) the "clamp" and now I KNOW even these Leupold rings are tight.

And TX Hunter is also right about the Ruger rings. I would not have had this problem with Ruger rings which was the whole point of this post.

[dvdcrr]

I have never really had a problem with ruger rings, I just make sure the cross bar is seated fully forward in the slot as I snug up then do the final snug after the scope is in the rings.

I have gone to a Warne one piece tactical base lately on all my non ruger stuff along with Leupold PRW rings and that is a first rate American made setup!

[FrankenMauser]

Two weeks ago, my pig-headed grandfather spent nearly 25 minutes arguing about the rings on my M77 tang safety (and it was re-hashed, when the M77 Mk II came out a little later).

He seems to think that Ruger rings are of the devil, and will never, ever, EVER hold zero. ...But he hasn't ever owned a Ruger rifle, of any model, in his life. He didn't even believe me, when I explained the alignment slots and tabs (also serving as recoil lugs) that are milled into Ruger rings and receivers; or when I explained how one side (right side I believe?) of the rings are fixed, and allow for a pretty impressive return-to-zero.


Ruger rings are far better than most people believe.

[rbursek]

Warbirdlover,
If you posted that you had 40 years here and all your "expertise" in scope mounting I would not have mentioned it, but since I had no idea of all your years of wisdom, I did, then maybe with all that wisdom you could have not needed to post an an inquiery to your problem.
Bob

[rbursek]

warbirdlover,
here is an example of can't know what you don't know from a post today, and how are we supposed to know what you did on your scope mounting.
"So I went to the rifle range today to sight in a new muzzle loader and there was this guy and his wife shooting a couple benches over from me and we got to talking a bit. He asked me a few questions about my muzzle loader and I was telling him about some other guns or what not that I own. Well I noticed he had a AR-15 with a scope on it and the Windage turret was on the left side of the gun at first I thought he had the scope rotated the wrong way and I thought it's not right, but it should still work because he is swapping the windage and elevation turrets. Well after looking at it a bit more I realized that he didn't have it rotated the wrong way, but it was installed with the objective to the rear and the eyepiece of the scope was to the front of the rifle. So I asked him "Hey man I got to ask you whats up with your scope being turned the wrong way" His response "is that the wrong way I was wondering because when I look through it objects look further away and I haven't been able to hit the target" The scary part he told me he just got his CWP"...............

[jmr40]

You only had to buy 1 ring from Ruger to make this work. The rear ring you had could have been moved to the front position and a new taller ring purchased for the rear.

Most all bolt rifles have a lower rear receiver bridge than front and use thicker bases on the rear to get the scope level. Ruger's solution was to use several different height rings that will work on both front and rear. They ship with a medium ring for the front and a tall ring for the rear. If you need taller mounts for a bigger scope you remove the front ring, move the rear to the front position and buy a new extra tall for the rear.

You can go lower by moving the medium to the rear and buying a ney low for the front. Buying only 1 ring from Ruger would have been cheaper than buying a set of aftermarket rings.

[rbursek]

jmr40,
Ya but he sez he has 40 years experience and is not an idiot!!!! But admits he was to stupid to by the Ruger rings to begin with! Ignorence is curable, stupidity is for ever.
Bob