Ruger Skeleton stock rifles?? What's your experience with these?

PainterJohn · February 9, 2010, 04:33 PM

I have a skeleton stocked (zytel) 7mm rem mag that starts with the serial # 780. (1991) It seems very accurate.

I like it because it is resilient and it fits me! I am interested in the same gun in a 243.

I found one that starts with the serial 785 (1998).

I wanted some info on these guns and thought I would seek advice from the experts. When did they start and stop making these guns? Are there any rules of thumb on them? good ones, bad ones? better years to buy? do they hold consistant accuracy? Am I wise to buy one of these vs a new Abolt or xbolt that is bedded and floated? I plan on using this for varmints and deer. Any and all info is appreciated!

bamaranger · February 10, 2010, 01:15 AM

to the single "old style" synthetic (stainless) stocked rifle in my collection.

The "skeletonized" Ruger stock you are referring to is the model w/ "Ruger" set into the recesses of the butt, the plastic inserts at pistol grip and forearm and the fixed sling loops front and rear, yes?

The version on my rifle is certainly stout, I believe you could drive a nail w/ it.
Why Ruger insisted on designing and producing this model is a wonder. Most folks consider them unsightly, the sling loops are sometimes noisy, and they could have been produced cheaper with no sacrifice in durability or practicality, w/o the plastic trim inserts. But there they are.

My rifle is typically sporter accurate, yielding 1.5 MOA groups. It is chambered in a rather odd caliber not known for accuracy, but it does fine. I took the time and effort to do a full, shoot one, clean it , shoot one, clean it, "break in" which may or may not have helped.

The trigger was way to heavy and has been tweaked by a knowledgeable trigger guy (not me) .

Ruger bbls in the early M77 years were contracted out to another supplier and had the reputation of hit or miss on accuracy. There are some rather glum reports on these rifles on the web, but the MkII solved all that w/ in house bbls. I am not certain, but believe all "skeletonized" stocked rifles are MKII and have in house produced bbls. Again, this is speculation, others may know for sure.

The other Ruger criticism sometimes heard is that the diagonal bedding bolt/stock system is not the best set up for accuracy. My two examples shoot fine ( the other is an early varmint model w/ contract bbl.)

I have no experience w/ A-bolts and X-bolts. I AM a fan of the .243 thus far on our 150 lb deer, w/ low recoil and flat trajectory a big plus, using 100 gr factory ammo to date. My teenager just killed his first buck at a measured 260 yds in Jan using a .243.

JH1 · February 10, 2010, 09:03 AM

I've got one in .270 that I've had for ten years or more, I believe made in '95. Love it. Killed a lot of deer with it. Its syn/ss, shoots good and isnt bad to look at either. I think the ones with the skeleton stock and blued barreled action are ugly as sin though.

Magnum Wheel Man · February 10, 2010, 09:26 AM

I have a stainless .243 in the era you are looking at... mine is reasonably accurate, I like the looks of it, & it was one of my 1st rifles... I've since "outgrown" the rifle as I started collecting, but it's still one of my most requested guns to borrow... so I keep it at ready for all the nieces & nephews...

I found hand loads that shot to the same point of impact ( roughly ) with both 80 grain & 100 grain bullets, so I keep two loads around one for preditors, & one for deer...

PainterJohn · February 10, 2010, 09:27 AM

I agree that the blued barrel jobs are not very appealing at all. I do like the looks of the stainless versions and as I said mt 7mm shoots well.

PainterJohn · February 10, 2010, 09:30 AM

I agree that the blued barrel jobs are not very appealing at all. I do like the looks of the stainless versions and as I said my 7mm shoots well. I think I may try one in 243. Worst case scenariois I would sell it if it doesn't perform. I have seen guys with a total collection of these. I just need to verify the barrel stories...good or bad. Anyone with info on these please jump in...I'm all ears!

gkdir · February 10, 2010, 12:07 PM

I've got a 7mm mag., a 30.06., a.270., a .243., (2) .223's and a .22mag. All M77 Mark II's. All of them are at least 1 1/2" shooters. The 30.06 and the .270 are better than that (30.06 is spooky accurate) All are SS (don't think I would like the blued finish.) Between me and my two older sons, these guns have taken a pounding down thru the years. Haven't had any major issues--all the triggers were dialed in by a gunsmith to about 2 1/2#'s (one of the .223's is at 14oz.'s--p-dog rifle) Don't like the sling attachments, but a little tape quites them down. The 7mm mag. is a hand full with a full load- lite weight stock doesn't adapt well to a additional recoil pad. These are excellent rifles in my opinion. Just need to add a 300.mag. and a .308, then I will have my complete set (yea, I know their are other calibers avail. but they don't count.)

warbirdlover · February 10, 2010, 12:10 PM

I've got a Ruger 77 Mk II all-weather with this stock. They quite making them in 1999. I like it very well except for the stupid sling setup. I've had to jury rig slings because of those and can't use a Harris bipod because of those goofy things also. But the basic stock is very sound and my .300 WM is a tackhammer. (The barrel doesn't free float in that stock). I just put on a Pachmyr decellerator recoil pad (pre-fit and not too bad) to try and calm it down some.

gkdir, how much you give me for my .300 mag? JK.

Scorch · February 10, 2010, 01:09 PM

Ruger introduced the skeletonized (so-called "boat paddle" stocks) Zytel nylon stocks on M77/22 All Weather rifles about 1987, then on the M77 Mark II rifles about 1989. There is nothing inherently or technically wrong with the stocks. They are strong and lightweight, but transfer a lot of recoil. People either love them or hate them. They were replaced with the current model stock in 1999/2000.

The barrel issue with Ruger 77 rifles was resolved before the introduction of the Mark II rifles. I have never seen a Ruger 77 Mark II that would not shoot well enough to be a good hunting rifle (about 1 MOA), but some shoot a lot better than others.

I had a Ruger 77 Mark II in 243 that was insanely accurate, but it kicked harder than a 30-06 because of the lightweight stock. I am still sorry I traded it.

gkdir · February 10, 2010, 11:00 PM

WarBird- If you lived in Fla. we might talk about it. I got a rule that keeps me out of trouble. FTF and cash. So far I have never been disappointed--thanks for the inquiry non the less.

bamaranger · February 11, 2010, 02:36 AM

I've got a 77/22 stainless, boat paddle as well, so there's two in my collection. Can't remember nothin' anymore!!!

Regards the sling hangers, I have seen guys dremel the sling loops/hangers off and install regular screw in studs. Quieter, and allows use of Harris bipod.

Pretty sure they shortened the length of the threaded portion, and backed the shortened stud with a dab of epoxy in the hole as well.

warbirdlover · February 11, 2010, 10:27 AM

Here's a pic of my Ruger anyway...

comn-cents · February 11, 2010, 10:46 AM

I love mine. 30 06 with open sights, stainless steel and shoots better than I can. I think it recoils less than other guns I've shot or owned, it’s the only hunting rifle I own right now. The stock seems quieter than other synthetic stocks that I have owned, think I'll keep it.

bottom rung · February 11, 2010, 10:10 PM

I owned a Ruger M77 MK II All Weather in .30-06. It had the boat paddle or skeletonized synthetic stock. I love these stocks. They felt much more solid than the newer synthetic stocks, like the one on my Hawkeye. Aside from the pesky, awkward, and noisy sling mounts, these old stocks were much quieter than the new ones. Brownells had some of the old style synthetic stocks for sale. I wanted to buy one and put it on my Hawkeye.

grubbylabs · February 11, 2010, 10:15 PM

I had one it was a 7 mag. It had some kick to it. but it shot straight.

PainterJohn · February 14, 2010, 08:35 AM

I guess that I am willing to try one in 223, 243 or 260. Anyone thinking of selling or trading?

jmr40 · February 14, 2010, 09:51 AM

I've had 2 or 3 rifles with that stock. They are rugged and dependable, but I don't like them. They have a smaller butt on them and anything with any recoil seems worse since it is concentrated into a smaller area than other stocks. Sling mounting system sucks. They are quite slick and hard to hold onto. The grip panels do next to nothing to help.

I ordered one of the newer style synthetic stocks directly from Ruger to replace the last one I bought and like them much better. Cost me $85 shipped and I sold the old stock for $40. I actually prefer a quality synthetic with no checkering and a textured paint all over for a good grip on the gun.

mdd · February 14, 2010, 10:23 AM

That's too bad jmr. I have a new style short action ruger stock sitting here. I put a skeleton style stock on new 204. I would have traded you straight across and we'd both have what we liked.

warbirdlover · February 16, 2010, 02:18 AM

Quote:

I ordered one of the newer style synthetic stocks directly from Ruger to replace the last one I bought and like them much better. Cost me $85 shipped and I sold the old stock for $40. I actually prefer a quality synthetic with no checkering and a textured paint all over for a good grip on the gun.

jmr40

$85 shipped? They quoted me way more then that when I asked them a month ago. But I decided to keep my skeleton stock and just put on a Pachmyr Decelerator pad. That was $40 right there.

Question for you owners of Rugers with this stock. The barrel on mine does not free float (sub MOA groups though). Is yours?

jmr40 · February 16, 2010, 09:49 AM

Just curious, but what are they asking for the stocks now. I bought mine about 3 years ago and had the choice of walnut for $275 or synthetic for $85. I wanted synthetic to save weight and money.

Mine is the newer Hawkeye stock with the better recoil pad and QD swivel studs. After selling my old stock it would have cost a lot more to replace the pad and install studs on the old stock.

Neither the old or new stock is free floated. I don't think it helps any at all with Rugers anyway. Especially with the factory synthetics.

warbirdlover · February 16, 2010, 11:12 AM

If I remember right it was around $150.

PainterJohn · February 16, 2010, 02:30 PM

WTB- 223, 243, 260. Please email or PM if you want to sell one. If you fool with them enough you acn get them shooting good enough to hunt with. Not a bench gun at all, but I just hunt with mine.

mdd · February 16, 2010, 08:47 PM

Don't overlook the 25-06. I have two of the three calibers you mentioned in this specific rifle. Ever since I picked up my 25-06, the others stay home. I really enjoy this caliber and for the range you mentioned (223 to 260) I think you would like it also.

PainterJohn · February 16, 2010, 09:25 PM

thanks mdd!

-hear that fellas?? add 25-06 to that WTB list!!

mshootnit · February 16, 2010, 09:35 PM

Dad gave me one in 223 back in the 90's. I glass bedded it, worked the trigger, and put a target scope on it. I loaded 50Blitzkings, and some other loads and took it out to see what would happen. All loads shot well under an inch at 100 yds. I'd say thats pretty good?

February 9, 2010, 04:33 PM	#1
PainterJohn Member Join Date: July 4, 2007 Posts: 52	Ruger Skeleton stock rifles?? What's your experience with these? I have a skeleton stocked (zytel) 7mm rem mag that starts with the serial # 780. (1991) It seems very accurate. I like it because it is resilient and it fits me! I am interested in the same gun in a 243. I found one that starts with the serial 785 (1998). I wanted some info on these guns and thought I would seek advice from the experts. When did they start and stop making these guns? Are there any rules of thumb on them? good ones, bad ones? better years to buy? do they hold consistant accuracy? Am I wise to buy one of these vs a new Abolt or xbolt that is bedded and floated? I plan on using this for varmints and deer. Any and all info is appreciated!

February 10, 2010, 01:15 AM	#2
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,554	My experience is limited....... to the single "old style" synthetic (stainless) stocked rifle in my collection. The "skeletonized" Ruger stock you are referring to is the model w/ "Ruger" set into the recesses of the butt, the plastic inserts at pistol grip and forearm and the fixed sling loops front and rear, yes? The version on my rifle is certainly stout, I believe you could drive a nail w/ it. Why Ruger insisted on designing and producing this model is a wonder. Most folks consider them unsightly, the sling loops are sometimes noisy, and they could have been produced cheaper with no sacrifice in durability or practicality, w/o the plastic trim inserts. But there they are. My rifle is typically sporter accurate, yielding 1.5 MOA groups. It is chambered in a rather odd caliber not known for accuracy, but it does fine. I took the time and effort to do a full, shoot one, clean it , shoot one, clean it, "break in" which may or may not have helped. The trigger was way to heavy and has been tweaked by a knowledgeable trigger guy (not me) . Ruger bbls in the early M77 years were contracted out to another supplier and had the reputation of hit or miss on accuracy. There are some rather glum reports on these rifles on the web, but the MkII solved all that w/ in house bbls. I am not certain, but believe all "skeletonized" stocked rifles are MKII and have in house produced bbls. Again, this is speculation, others may know for sure. The other Ruger criticism sometimes heard is that the diagonal bedding bolt/stock system is not the best set up for accuracy. My two examples shoot fine ( the other is an early varmint model w/ contract bbl.) I have no experience w/ A-bolts and X-bolts. I AM a fan of the .243 thus far on our 150 lb deer, w/ low recoil and flat trajectory a big plus, using 100 gr factory ammo to date. My teenager just killed his first buck at a measured 260 yds in Jan using a .243.

February 10, 2010, 09:26 AM	#4
Magnum Wheel Man Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2006 Location: Southern Minnesota Posts: 9,333	I have a stainless .243 in the era you are looking at... mine is reasonably accurate, I like the looks of it, & it was one of my 1st rifles... I've since "outgrown" the rifle as I started collecting, but it's still one of my most requested guns to borrow... so I keep it at ready for all the nieces & nephews... I found hand loads that shot to the same point of impact ( roughly ) with both 80 grain & 100 grain bullets, so I keep two loads around one for preditors, & one for deer... Last edited by Magnum Wheel Man; February 10, 2010 at 09:47 AM.

February 10, 2010, 01:09 PM	#9
Scorch Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2006 Location: Washington state Posts: 15,249	Ruger introduced the skeletonized (so-called "boat paddle" stocks) Zytel nylon stocks on M77/22 All Weather rifles about 1987, then on the M77 Mark II rifles about 1989. There is nothing inherently or technically wrong with the stocks. They are strong and lightweight, but transfer a lot of recoil. People either love them or hate them. They were replaced with the current model stock in 1999/2000. The barrel issue with Ruger 77 rifles was resolved before the introduction of the Mark II rifles. I have never seen a Ruger 77 Mark II that would not shoot well enough to be a good hunting rifle (about 1 MOA), but some shoot a lot better than others. I had a Ruger 77 Mark II in 243 that was insanely accurate, but it kicked harder than a 30-06 because of the lightweight stock. I am still sorry I traded it. __________________ Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs. But what do I know? Summit Arms Services

February 11, 2010, 02:36 AM	#11
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,554	What was I thinking...... I've got a 77/22 stainless, boat paddle as well, so there's two in my collection. Can't remember nothin' anymore!!! Regards the sling hangers, I have seen guys dremel the sling loops/hangers off and install regular screw in studs. Quieter, and allows use of Harris bipod. Pretty sure they shortened the length of the threaded portion, and backed the shortened stud with a dab of epoxy in the hole as well.

February 10, 2010, 09:03 AM	#3
JH1 Member Join Date: August 25, 2005 Posts: 91	I've got one in .270 that I've had for ten years or more, I believe made in '95. Love it. Killed a lot of deer with it. Its syn/ss, shoots good and isnt bad to look at either. I think the ones with the skeleton stock and blued barreled action are ugly as sin though.

February 10, 2010, 09:27 AM	#5
PainterJohn Member Join Date: July 4, 2007 Posts: 52	I agree that the blued barrel jobs are not very appealing at all. I do like the looks of the stainless versions and as I said mt 7mm shoots well.

February 10, 2010, 09:30 AM	#6
PainterJohn Member Join Date: July 4, 2007 Posts: 52	I agree that the blued barrel jobs are not very appealing at all. I do like the looks of the stainless versions and as I said my 7mm shoots well. I think I may try one in 243. Worst case scenariois I would sell it if it doesn't perform. I have seen guys with a total collection of these. I just need to verify the barrel stories...good or bad. Anyone with info on these please jump in...I'm all ears!

February 10, 2010, 12:07 PM	#7
gkdir Member Join Date: March 27, 2009 Location: Oklahoma/Kansas Posts: 89	I've got a 7mm mag., a 30.06., a.270., a .243., (2) .223's and a .22mag. All M77 Mark II's. All of them are at least 1 1/2" shooters. The 30.06 and the .270 are better than that (30.06 is spooky accurate) All are SS (don't think I would like the blued finish.) Between me and my two older sons, these guns have taken a pounding down thru the years. Haven't had any major issues--all the triggers were dialed in by a gunsmith to about 2 1/2#'s (one of the .223's is at 14oz.'s--p-dog rifle) Don't like the sling attachments, but a little tape quites them down. The 7mm mag. is a hand full with a full load- lite weight stock doesn't adapt well to a additional recoil pad. These are excellent rifles in my opinion. Just need to add a 300.mag. and a .308, then I will have my complete set (yea, I know their are other calibers avail. but they don't count.)

February 10, 2010, 12:10 PM	#8
warbirdlover Senior Member Join Date: December 13, 2009 Location: central Wisconsin Posts: 2,324	I've got a Ruger 77 Mk II all-weather with this stock. They quite making them in 1999. I like it very well except for the stupid sling setup. I've had to jury rig slings because of those and can't use a Harris bipod because of those goofy things also. But the basic stock is very sound and my .300 WM is a tackhammer. (The barrel doesn't free float in that stock). I just put on a Pachmyr decellerator recoil pad (pre-fit and not too bad) to try and calm it down some. gkdir, how much you give me for my .300 mag? JK.

February 10, 2010, 11:00 PM	#10
gkdir Member Join Date: March 27, 2009 Location: Oklahoma/Kansas Posts: 89	WarBird- If you lived in Fla. we might talk about it. I got a rule that keeps me out of trouble. FTF and cash. So far I have never been disappointed--thanks for the inquiry non the less.

February 11, 2010, 10:46 AM	#13
comn-cents Senior Member Join Date: June 18, 2008 Location: Pac.N.W. Posts: 1,804	I love mine. 30 06 with open sights, stainless steel and shoots better than I can. I think it recoils less than other guns I've shot or owned, it’s the only hunting rifle I own right now. The stock seems quieter than other synthetic stocks that I have owned, think I'll keep it.

February 11, 2010, 10:10 PM	#14
bottom rung Senior Member Join Date: April 4, 2007 Location: CT Posts: 494	I owned a Ruger M77 MK II All Weather in .30-06. It had the boat paddle or skeletonized synthetic stock. I love these stocks. They felt much more solid than the newer synthetic stocks, like the one on my Hawkeye. Aside from the pesky, awkward, and noisy sling mounts, these old stocks were much quieter than the new ones. Brownells had some of the old style synthetic stocks for sale. I wanted to buy one and put it on my Hawkeye.

February 11, 2010, 10:15 PM	#15
grubbylabs Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 2009 Location: Hansen Idaho Posts: 1,465	I had one it was a 7 mag. It had some kick to it. but it shot straight.

February 14, 2010, 08:35 AM	#16
PainterJohn Member Join Date: July 4, 2007 Posts: 52	I guess that I am willing to try one in 223, 243 or 260. Anyone thinking of selling or trading?

February 14, 2010, 09:51 AM	#17
jmr40 Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Georgia Posts: 10,888	I've had 2 or 3 rifles with that stock. They are rugged and dependable, but I don't like them. They have a smaller butt on them and anything with any recoil seems worse since it is concentrated into a smaller area than other stocks. Sling mounting system sucks. They are quite slick and hard to hold onto. The grip panels do next to nothing to help. I ordered one of the newer style synthetic stocks directly from Ruger to replace the last one I bought and like them much better. Cost me $85 shipped and I sold the old stock for $40. I actually prefer a quality synthetic with no checkering and a textured paint all over for a good grip on the gun.

February 14, 2010, 10:23 AM	#18
mdd Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2010 Posts: 626	That's too bad jmr. I have a new style short action ruger stock sitting here. I put a skeleton style stock on new 204. I would have traded you straight across and we'd both have what we liked.

February 16, 2010, 09:49 AM	#20
jmr40 Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Georgia Posts: 10,888	Just curious, but what are they asking for the stocks now. I bought mine about 3 years ago and had the choice of walnut for $275 or synthetic for $85. I wanted synthetic to save weight and money. Mine is the newer Hawkeye stock with the better recoil pad and QD swivel studs. After selling my old stock it would have cost a lot more to replace the pad and install studs on the old stock. Neither the old or new stock is free floated. I don't think it helps any at all with Rugers anyway. Especially with the factory synthetics.

February 16, 2010, 11:12 AM	#21
warbirdlover Senior Member Join Date: December 13, 2009 Location: central Wisconsin Posts: 2,324	If I remember right it was around $150.

February 16, 2010, 02:30 PM	#22
PainterJohn Member Join Date: July 4, 2007 Posts: 52	WTB- 223, 243, 260. Please email or PM if you want to sell one. If you fool with them enough you acn get them shooting good enough to hunt with. Not a bench gun at all, but I just hunt with mine.

February 16, 2010, 08:47 PM	#23
mdd Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2010 Posts: 626	Don't overlook the 25-06. I have two of the three calibers you mentioned in this specific rifle. Ever since I picked up my 25-06, the others stay home. I really enjoy this caliber and for the range you mentioned (223 to 260) I think you would like it also.

February 16, 2010, 09:25 PM	#24
PainterJohn Member Join Date: July 4, 2007 Posts: 52	thanks mdd! -hear that fellas?? add 25-06 to that WTB list!!

February 16, 2010, 09:35 PM	#25
mshootnit Junior member Join Date: December 14, 2007 Posts: 42	Dad gave me one in 223 back in the 90's. I glass bedded it, worked the trigger, and put a target scope on it. I loaded 50Blitzkings, and some other loads and took it out to see what would happen. All loads shot well under an inch at 100 yds. I'd say thats pretty good?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search