Ruger M77?

[FrankenMauser]

They called me a couple weeks later and said they would re barrel it.

They knew the score.
They didn't start using their hammer-forged barrels until '92.

[Red Devil]

Originally Posted by clockwork65

In the $600 to $800 hunting rifle (medium to big game) range, everyone talks about Tikkas, 116s, and 700s and some of the Browning bolts. No one ever seems to mention M77s. When I was growing up, we always thought of Ruger as rugged and dependable. Has something about the guns/company changed or just what's en vogue? (Note: I'm not in the market for one, just asking out of genuine curiosity.)

Rugged... Dependable... .357 Magnum.

Red

[bamaranger]

In a big name gun shop in our area, I saw exactly ONE Ruger 77 just today. It was the diminutive 16" barreled Frontier model, a MkII, in 7mm-08, and they were asking a premium price.....the used rifle was VG+.

In that same rack were at least 18 Ruger American's in a wide variety of calibers and configurations, new, at around half the price.

[agtman]

I'm not sure what "hunting accurate" is, but if that means hitting vitals at 100 yards, then I guess my two are good for hunting mice in the open fields.

'Hunting accuracy' - as distinguished from 'precision accuracy' - is a shifting standard, generally ranging from 2- to 4-MOA, depending on the cartridge used and the species being hunted.

It's one thing to hunt the tiny stuff, like squirrels. I have several rimfire rifles with long and short barrels, and all of them will shoot sub-MOA bug holes at 50-yds ...

For African water buffalo or Alaskan brown bear, I don't care if my .404 Jeffrey's best 100-yd group is 4"-5". That's still well within the kill-zone of the really large DG critters. And more likely that group is a reflection on my meager skills shooting that cartridge from standing (unsupported). Off of sticks, or some other quasi-supported field-position, groups improve. No doubt too the rifle itself - from a bench rest with sand bags - shoots much better. But nobody hunts DG off a bench.

Regardless, for the Fudds sippin' coffee and dunkin' donuts at 4am in deer camp, 'hunting' accuracy means if their 270, .308, or '06 rifle can group 3-to-5 rounds inside a 4"-5" zone @ 100-yds (or less) from typical 'deer-hunting' field positions (e.g., sitting in a tree stand or on a stump on the ground), they're good to go and will fill their tags.

Precision shooters are a much fussier lot and are, at a minimum, seeking a consistent MOA result - and preferably sub-MOA with a particular cartridge/rifle combination.

And although the precision guys initially use 100-yds as the typical standard for vetting the accuracy of a particular rifle/load combo, that distance increases quickly and incrementally, with the minimum distance for precision work being more like 500-yds - or what was once called 'The Rifleman's Quartermile.'

Of course, with the various rifle/cartridge/optic combinations available to shooters in today's competitive precision game, 'long distance' now routinely means shooting over 1K yards.

[Drm50]

Having owned several hundred rifles in my life I don't keep a BA that won't do 11/4" at 100. I'm not a target shooter but the better a rifle shoots of bags, the better chance to put a bullet in 6" kill zone under hunting conditions. Even on a deer 6" the wrong way can cause a bad hit. I don't expect 11/4" out of pumps & levers but these type guns I use for woods where ranges are 100yds or less. Most of them are 0rd at 60yds and shot under 2". If they
don't they go in trade pile. As with all assembly line products, sometimes you get a cherry or a lemon. The majority are average. I have seen low end rifles shoot like a target gun. I have also seen top shelf rifles that were terrible. As most hunters are not loaders the opinions are drawn mostly from factory ammo.

[ThomasT]

I read somewhere that one dude commented that the Ruger 77 had a following in Alaska, where he saw many guides and outfitters carrying one, heavily weathered, but still used steadily as "working" rifles by outdoor folks. I'd expect those were MkII rifles with controlled feed and Mauser ejector.

That would have been Brian Pearce in Rifle Magazine. I remember the article.

I have a MKII in 30-06. With just my generic handloads it will shoot all the 3 shot goups you want to shoot and stay between one and one and quarter inches depending on how well I do my job. Thats good enough for me. I am not a target shooter.

I bought a 77/22 made in 1986 IIRC that came with factroy open sights. I had read they were not that accurate so I didn't expect much from it. i made a target with 1" squares on it and set it at 50 yards. It will keep 10 shots inside of that 1" square every magazine full and do it with the cheap Federal Blue Box bulk ammo I bought from Walmart. I haven't tried any high dollar target ammo. A 5/8s" group at 50 yards is will work for me.

[FrankenMauser]

'Hunting accuracy' - as distinguished from 'precision accuracy' - is a shifting standard, generally ranging from 2- to 4-MOA, depending on the cartridge used and the species being hunted.

That "depending" qualifier is very important.

I know a guy that spends his deer season in a stand where the only shot opportunity is pretty much straight down, at a range of 19-35 feet. For him, "hunting accurate" means little more than 'the projectile leaves the end of the barrel.'

To some people, 4-5 MoA is good enough.

I know a fair number of people that consider adequate hunting accuracy to be "five shots in the center of a paper plate at 200 yards". Or, in other words, about 2.5-3 MoA to stay in the center circle of a standard, flimsy 8" paper plate.

But not for me.
For me, "hunting accurate" is going to be 1-2 MoA - generally leaning toward 1.5 MoA and up.
2+ MoA is simply unacceptable to me.

Rifles that shoot 2 MoA or more get inspected, investigated, and improved. If no improvement can be found, they get rebuilt or sent on down the line to the next owner.

As I put it a few years ago, while discussing how I use my 6mm wildcat (Ruger 77) and a load that I worked up for my .270 Win (Ruger 77 Mk II)... "I like to be able to pick which hairs the bullet will be cutting on the way in [to the animal's vitals]."

1.5 MoA is okay for some types of hunting. But, generally, I'm looking for sub-MoA - and as far sub-MoA as I can get.
Part of making a clean kill is knowing exactly where that bullet will go - not just a rough idea of where it should go. I won't knock other hunters for having lower standards; and I don't look down on other hunters that do have lower standards.

But for me (and at least one of my brothers), I generally want more precision in my hunting rifles than the average shooter is satisfied with in their "match" rifles.


The 77 Mk II in 7x57mm that I mentioned in a previous reply as being "hunting accurate" was with my set of standards in place. It's shooting roughly 1-1/4 to 1-3/4 MoA right now, with a variety of loads. To plenty of people, that's plenty good.
But not for me. It can do better, and I'm going to try to help it find a way. As is, it's not "bad enough" to warrant selling it and moving on. But it isn't quite good enough to keep my attention, either.
It can be better.

I bought a 77/22 made in 1986 IIRC that came with factroy open sights. I had read they were not that accurate so I didn't expect much from it. i made a target with 1" squares on it and set it at 50 yards. It will keep 10 shots inside of that 1" square every magazine full and do it with the cheap Federal Blue Box bulk ammo I bought from Walmart. I haven't tried any high dollar target ammo. A 5/8s" group at 50 yards is will work for me.

The 77/22s have a bad reputation for terrible accuracy, but I have no idea where it comes from. I've never met an actual owner that didn't love theirs.
Online? Sure... There are 335 million people that think they suck. But in person, from actual owners... Not a bad word to be heard.

I was very surprised the first time I put mine (~2008 production) on paper at 100 yards.
With six different loads, it held 3/4" or better. With ALL loads tested, the largest group was 1.25".

Terrible accuracy.

[Dufus]

^^^^^^^^^^^
My thoughts are purty much in line with FrankenMauser's.

I don't want "hunting accuracy" from any of my rifles.

If I couldn't get a Browning, then I would look for a Ruger.

[dgludwig]

The 77 Mk II in 7x57mm that I mentioned in a previous reply as being "hunting accurate" was with my set of standards in place. It's shooting roughly 1-1/4 to 1-3/4 MoA right now, with a variety of loads. To plenty of people, that's plenty good.
But not for me. It can do better, and I'm going to try to help it find a way. As is, it's not "bad enough" to warrant selling it and moving on. But it isn't quite good enough to keep my attention, either.

"Only accurate rifles are interesting"- Col. Townsend Whelen.
All of my many Ruger bolt-action rifles have been "interesting"; some, very interesting.

[dgludwig]

I'd expect those were MkII rifles with controlled feed and Mauser ejector.

Interestingly, a letter from a gunsmith was published in the March 2019 issue of the American Rifle magazine claiming that he has seen evidence that, "...Some Mark IIs are push-fed. I have no idea why, as they did have fixed ejectors and claw extractors, which would enable controlled-round feed. Check out the bolt face of some MK IIs, and you will see a lip on the lower edge, just like an early 77 (a photo was provided showing the area in question). This lip positively prevents controlled-round feed."

[Red Devil]

Originally Posted by FrankenMauser

That "depending" qualifier is very important.

I know a guy that spends his deer season in a stand where the only shot opportunity is pretty much straight down, at a range of 19-35 feet. For him, "hunting accurate" means little more than 'the projectile leaves the end of the barrel.'

To some people, 4-5 MoA is good enough.

I know a fair number of people that consider adequate hunting accuracy to be "five shots in the center of a paper plate at 200 yards". Or, in other words, about 2.5-3 MoA to stay in the center circle of a standard, flimsy 8" paper plate.

But not for me.
For me, "hunting accurate" is going to be 1-2 MoA - generally leaning toward 1.5 MoA and up.
2+ MoA is simply unacceptable to me.

Rifles that shoot 2 MoA or more get inspected, investigated, and improved. If no improvement can be found, they get rebuilt or sent on down the line to the next owner.

As I put it a few years ago, while discussing how I use my 6mm wildcat (Ruger 77) and a load that I worked up for my .270 Win (Ruger 77 Mk II)... "I like to be able to pick which hairs the bullet will be cutting on the way in [to the animal's vitals]."

1.5 MoA is okay for some types of hunting. But, generally, I'm looking for sub-MoA - and as far sub-MoA as I can get.
Part of making a clean kill is knowing exactly where that bullet will go - not just a rough idea of where it should go. I won't knock other hunters for having lower standards; and I don't look down on other hunters that do have lower standards.

But for me (and at least one of my brothers), I generally want more precision in my hunting rifles than the average shooter is satisfied with in their "match" rifles.


The 77 Mk II in 7x57mm that I mentioned in a previous reply as being "hunting accurate" was with my set of standards in place. It's shooting roughly 1-1/4 to 1-3/4 MoA right now, with a variety of loads. To plenty of people, that's plenty good.
But not for me. It can do better, and I'm going to try to help it find a way. As is, it's not "bad enough" to warrant selling it and moving on. But it isn't quite good enough to keep my attention, either.
It can be better.


The 77/22s have a bad reputation for terrible accuracy, but I have no idea where it comes from. I've never met an actual owner that didn't love theirs.
Online? Sure... There are 335 million people that think they suck. But in person, from actual owners... Not a bad word to be heard.

I was very surprised the first time I put mine (~2008 production) on paper at 100 yards.
With six different loads, it held 3/4" or better. With ALL loads tested, the largest group was 1.25".

Terrible accuracy.

I will take < 3 MOA, from field positions, all day long from a hunting rifle.

If you judge a hunting rifle from the bench?

You are fooling yourself.




Red.

[FrankenMauser]

I will take < 3 MOA, from field positions, all day long from a hunting rifle.

If you judge a hunting rifle from the bench?

You are fooling yourself.

Indeed.
Last year's final load testing and sight-in to lock the suppressor down on my .270 took place in two locations:
1. From the top of a rock outcropping overlooking a step near a mountain peak. The only rests were rocks and a (nearly empty) ammo bag. Targets ranged from 75 to 390 yards. (~9,600 ft asl)
2. From a stepped bench in a rocky hillside - prone, kneeling, sitting, or braced against an aspen tree. Targets ranged from 40 to 280 yards (with crazy crosswinds kicking up every 10-15 minutes). (~8,900 ft asl)


But, then again...
"Match" shooters judge their rifles from a bench. Why not let hunting rifles get the same footing when being judged?...

Calling a rifle a "4 MoA rifle" because it's always fired off-hand by a caffeinated epileptic is misplacing the blame. One can't truly judge the rifle until the tool pulling the trigger is eliminated as a variable.

[dgludwig]

Calling a rifle a "4 MoA rifle" because it's always fired off-hand by a caffeinated epileptic is misplacing the blame. One can't truly judge the rifle until the tool pulling the trigger is eliminated as a variable.

Very true. Just as uninformative (dumb) are reviewers testing for the accuracies of handguns by shooting them offhand with the idea "that's how they're shot in the real world". When I want to learn how accurate any firearm is, I'm interested in knowing its intrinsic capability for accuracy, not how well or how poorly the shooter's skills are or aren't.

[SCgman]

Being a lefty the Hawkeye was a candidate years ago while the LHs were still offered by Ruger. Picked up a wood stocked 30-06. During break in I had to trim the mag well to relieve the binding stress on the action once action screws were torqued. It went from erratic grouping to consistent 1-1/2" or better. The wood stocks are nice but since the barrel is not floated I worry about moisture warping the stock and affecting accuracy, so it's my safe queen. Picked up a Tikka 30-06 T3 lite SS LH synthetic a couple of years ago, it was a shooter out of the box. Plus its a nice all weather gun. Both were about the same price.

[lewwetzel]

I inherited a tang-safety/red pad .243 Win., with what could be a medium-heavy Douglas barrel. Shot “okay” with minimal load development.
Recently bought a lightly-used Mk II VT in .220 Swift. Was able to get out briefly in this winter weather to get the scope dialed in, and was impressed with what I was getting with factory ammo.
The 77 Mk. IIs are the result of tooling upgrades and other production modernization.

[stagpanther]

I bought a used anniversary edition in 35 whelen--classic extremely well-built rifle in my opinion. I've shot some sub-MOA with it off the bench. I keep my eye out for them, not only very well built and nice looking but reasonable weight for real-world hunting.

[oldscot3]

f you judge a hunting rifle from the bench?

You are fooling yourself.

Shooting a rifle from the bench should tell you what your rifle, scope and ammo combination is capable of in the best of circumstances. That's not fooling yourself, it's learning what the full potential is. Pretty much the rest is all on you.

[Don Fischer]

I've owned one Ruger CF rifle. Early M 77 tang safety in 7x57. Friend in a gun shop got me one when they first came out, about 1972. Probably the most beautiful rifle I ever saw and the hardest rifle I ever owned to get to shoot. Loved that rifle but accuracy was a huge disappointment. The only bullet's that would shoot were Hornady 154gr RN bullet's and they gave me right around 1" at best. Of course it killed everything I shot at very dead! da*n that was a beautiful rifle!

[Lohman446]

But judging a hunting rifle from a bench next to a bench rifle is not really fair.

I don't care how good of groups your heavy, long barreled, 12lb rifle with 16 adjustments on the stock is capable of throwing at the range off of bags and 10 minutes of setting up. Its never going to replicate those hunting where a bench is not available.

Your right my, for instance, M77 is never going to throw as good of groups off the bench as that theoretical bench rifle is. BUT that theoretical bench rifle is not going to be halfway up the mountain taking a shot off an improvised rest after tracking and moving after a herd of elk all day.

Hunting accuracy IS different than bench accuracy and is dependent, to some degree, on the shooter.

[stagpanther]

I agree with Franken--except he's more generous than me, I generally aim for a precision of .5 MOA if I'm shooting past 200 yds.

[agtman]

That would have been Brian Pearce in Rifle Magazine. I remember the article.

Okay, Ratshooter, now you've got me curious. Do you recall which issue of Rifle his article appeared in? I've got a bunch of back issues stashed somewhere ...