Ruger 77's
- Thread starter ajvigs
- Start date
Guy Miner
Master Loader
- Apr 6, 2006
- 17,895
- 6,662
Owned one years ago in .300 Win mag, one of the old "tang safety" models. It was a very reliable rifle with decent accuracy. I shot it quite a bit and hunted with it some. Used ammo from 150 - 200 grain loads, all did well.
The newer ones, Hawkeye, have real controlled round feed and a three-position safety. I haven't shot one of the new "Hawkeye" 77's, but the few I've looked over seem to be well made. Had to talk myself out of buying one that I found in a local shop last year. I didn't need it at all, but sure did like it.
I really like the way the recesses for the scope rings are built right into the action. Makes for a very simple, strong scope mounting system.
FWIW, Guy
The newer ones, Hawkeye, have real controlled round feed and a three-position safety. I haven't shot one of the new "Hawkeye" 77's, but the few I've looked over seem to be well made. Had to talk myself out of buying one that I found in a local shop last year. I didn't need it at all, but sure did like it.
I really like the way the recesses for the scope rings are built right into the action. Makes for a very simple, strong scope mounting system.
FWIW, Guy
At my gun club, membership over 500, I have seen a couple of 77 Rugers in use there. In hunting camps through out the west mostly, over several years time I have seen a few, 4-5. Oddly, IIRC they were all the same caliber though, .338 Win. Mag.
I have owned several, 22-250V, 7MM Mag., .300 Win. Mag. None of them were light-weight enough for me. But they did function smootly and shot well.
I have not reviewed the newer 77s,
Old Jim
I have owned several, 22-250V, 7MM Mag., .300 Win. Mag. None of them were light-weight enough for me. But they did function smootly and shot well.
I have not reviewed the newer 77s,
Old Jim
A
Anonymous
Guest
I've had or have models of the 77 from all three generations of production- the Tang Safety, the Mk II and the Hawkeye.
None are particularly lightweight but all I've owned functioned well. I did have a MkII that didn't shoot particularly well, but I had another that shot incredible- the MkII trigger is a real POS though. It works but it's heavy and not the easiest to fix DIY. The only way my gunsmith friend will "fix" one is tear it out and install a Timney.
All of my Hawkeyes have been excellent- not the prettiest or skinniest girl in the class but it gets the job done and is low maintenance. I have two .375 Ruger Alaskans that shoot sub MOA when I manage to not close my eyes when I shoot!
None are particularly lightweight but all I've owned functioned well. I did have a MkII that didn't shoot particularly well, but I had another that shot incredible- the MkII trigger is a real POS though. It works but it's heavy and not the easiest to fix DIY. The only way my gunsmith friend will "fix" one is tear it out and install a Timney.
All of my Hawkeyes have been excellent- not the prettiest or skinniest girl in the class but it gets the job done and is low maintenance. I have two .375 Ruger Alaskans that shoot sub MOA when I manage to not close my eyes when I shoot!
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 7
I have owned four Model 77 Ruger rifles including a .30-06 which had been converted to .308 Norma Mag. This plus a couple of Number ones have given me a fair amount of experience with the Ruger scope mounting system. The rifles themselves were also somewhat hinky about front angled action screw torque and if it was not set right, there were accuracy consequences. All of my Model 77 rifles, when set up properly for front screw torque were quite accurate. As was my 77RS .22 Hornet rifle. I understand that the new Model 77 is designed differently.
Here are a few comments based on 45 years of using Ruger scope rings: I do not like the fact the Ruger is still using blade type, flat head screws for scope ring screws. The Torx screws have many advantages over flatheads, if set up properly. I also do not like using a flatbladed screw for an action clamping screw for two reasons. The first is losing screw driver blade control and scratching the rifle action blue job or the scope tube finish when you invariably lose control of a blade type screw driver. This even when trying to put only 30-35 inch pounds of torque on the action nut and 25 inch pounds on the ring top screws. Again, a Torx type driver would be infinitely better than a screw driver blade.
My other issue is with holding the correct alignment of the small action holding lugs on the bottom of the rings with alignment of their rib receptacle while trying to carefully align the rings on a scope tube and not scratch the finish. This job requires three hands and is difficult to achieve well for most clutzes like me. Fixing this would require only enlarging the ring bottom lug and giving it better purchase in it rib groove by making the lug a little larger in order to give it better control and a little more engagement surface and easier alignment in the rib groove while aligning the scope in the rings.
I had not handled one of these Ruger scope ring sets in a while but I just bought a Number One and had to mount a medium sized scope on it. I felt like a three handed monkey in my old age trying to manipulate the rings in order to give me needed careful alignment on the scope tube and good seating of the ring bottom lug lugs into the quarter rib groove. I had forgotten what a challenge it was to mount a scope on a Ruger rifle but I finally got through it successfully.
Here are a few comments based on 45 years of using Ruger scope rings: I do not like the fact the Ruger is still using blade type, flat head screws for scope ring screws. The Torx screws have many advantages over flatheads, if set up properly. I also do not like using a flatbladed screw for an action clamping screw for two reasons. The first is losing screw driver blade control and scratching the rifle action blue job or the scope tube finish when you invariably lose control of a blade type screw driver. This even when trying to put only 30-35 inch pounds of torque on the action nut and 25 inch pounds on the ring top screws. Again, a Torx type driver would be infinitely better than a screw driver blade.
My other issue is with holding the correct alignment of the small action holding lugs on the bottom of the rings with alignment of their rib receptacle while trying to carefully align the rings on a scope tube and not scratch the finish. This job requires three hands and is difficult to achieve well for most clutzes like me. Fixing this would require only enlarging the ring bottom lug and giving it better purchase in it rib groove by making the lug a little larger in order to give it better control and a little more engagement surface and easier alignment in the rib groove while aligning the scope in the rings.
I had not handled one of these Ruger scope ring sets in a while but I just bought a Number One and had to mount a medium sized scope on it. I felt like a three handed monkey in my old age trying to manipulate the rings in order to give me needed careful alignment on the scope tube and good seating of the ring bottom lug lugs into the quarter rib groove. I had forgotten what a challenge it was to mount a scope on a Ruger rifle but I finally got through it successfully.
Guy Miner
Master Loader
- Apr 6, 2006
- 17,895
- 6,662
See - there ya go - different opinions. I really like Ruger's scope mounting system and OT3 sure doesn't! :grin:
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 7
Different opinions make the world go round! I welcome other viewpoints and am always open to friendly discussion on any of them. I am opinionated after being an engineer for 40 years but that is no big deal. I am retired and nearly 70 years old now and certainly make more mistakes than when I was healthy and younger.
I really do not like that Ruger ring system much because I am used to steel Picatinny mounts and rings which are very strong and use high tensile screws throughout with Torx heads. Sorry for the conflicting view but structures are my field.
I really do not like that Ruger ring system much because I am used to steel Picatinny mounts and rings which are very strong and use high tensile screws throughout with Torx heads. Sorry for the conflicting view but structures are my field.
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,589
- 6,757
My general impression is that they are built like a tank. They are a good rifle. I've owned several, and I have two of the Hawkeyes at the present. The .358 is amazingly accurate. The 35 Whelen wasn't near as accurate as the Remington Classic I sold. A new Hart Barrel seems to have remedied that particular malady. I've never had a problem with the scope mounting.
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 7
I certainly agree DrMike, at least concerning the rifle part, they are built like a tank. I also realise that they have been selling Number Ones chambered for eveything from the .450/400 and .375 H&H to the .458 Lott and the scopes have not been falling off. I bought my first two Rugers, a Number One and a Model 77 in the 1960's and I am sure that these are still going strong.
What I am saying is strictly an observation as a structures engineer on a mechanical assembly issue. I am not saying it does not work, only that for me, it is clumsy to mount a scope and less than optimal mechanically because of the ring design, rib interface and the screws, that is all.
What I am saying is strictly an observation as a structures engineer on a mechanical assembly issue. I am not saying it does not work, only that for me, it is clumsy to mount a scope and less than optimal mechanically because of the ring design, rib interface and the screws, that is all.
Guy Miner
Master Loader
- Apr 6, 2006
- 17,895
- 6,662
"A new Hart Barrel seems to have remedied that particular malady."
Hart makes one heck of a barrel!
Hart makes one heck of a barrel!
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,589
- 6,757
I would not hesitate to recommend a Hart barrel to someone looking for a replacement. I have several PacNor barrels, and they are as good as Hart.
I have had a Ruger Hawkeye 308 and a MKII 300 Win Mag. Both were accurate and very good rifles, but too plump for me. A different stock would have been different as well. I wouldn't hesitate to own another should I see something I couldn't resist. They have been very accurate as well once they were shot in well.
Wincheringen
Handloader
- Jan 10, 2012
- 931
- 1
I have more than I can count. 
I have them from .223 on up to .350 Rem Mag.
I find the triggers pretty easy to fix, they are a two pivot system, or an aftermarket is pretty easy to install. The scope rings are Torx now, but otherwise I would agree with OT3, I don't like the flat blade screws. Its a good thing Ruger does sell sets of the Torx ones for $3 so I've replaced all the flat ones with Torx.
Accuracy has been very good for me, all of them are sub 1" @ 100 yard shooters.
As far as function goes, mine all function as true CRF, but I've read of some people that have gotten rifles that didn't. In any case, Ruger has customer service that is second to none so if you have a problem they will make it right, for free.
I have them from .223 on up to .350 Rem Mag. I find the triggers pretty easy to fix, they are a two pivot system, or an aftermarket is pretty easy to install. The scope rings are Torx now, but otherwise I would agree with OT3, I don't like the flat blade screws. Its a good thing Ruger does sell sets of the Torx ones for $3 so I've replaced all the flat ones with Torx.
Accuracy has been very good for me, all of them are sub 1" @ 100 yard shooters.
As far as function goes, mine all function as true CRF, but I've read of some people that have gotten rifles that didn't. In any case, Ruger has customer service that is second to none so if you have a problem they will make it right, for free.
6mm Remington
Ammo Smith
- Feb 27, 2006
- 5,280
- 719
I own two Ruger #1B's and love both of them. I also really like the scope mounting system. I'm with OT3 in that the Torx head is the way to go. Both my #1's in 30-06 and 6mm Remington are very accurate!
Six years ago my son saved up for half and I paid the other half, and he purchased a brand new Ruger MKII in 6mm Remington. :shock: I sold the stock immediately to Nodak7mm (Sure miss that guy here and wish he would join us more!) and purchase a Boyds nutmeg laminate stock for his rifle. I had it checkered and we had our gunsmith glass bed and pillar bed the rifle. He also adjusted the trigger for us. It is a great, solid as a tank, and very accurate rifle.
David
Six years ago my son saved up for half and I paid the other half, and he purchased a brand new Ruger MKII in 6mm Remington. :shock: I sold the stock immediately to Nodak7mm (Sure miss that guy here and wish he would join us more!) and purchase a Boyds nutmeg laminate stock for his rifle. I had it checkered and we had our gunsmith glass bed and pillar bed the rifle. He also adjusted the trigger for us. It is a great, solid as a tank, and very accurate rifle.
David
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 7
I will feel much better putting Torx screws on the Number One and torquing them with a preset torque wrench. Right now, I would bet that the torque on these screws is all over the place in inch pounds. With what a Number One costs, I would rather that Ruger add $3 to the price and ship these rifles with Torx screws.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Just wondering here....both of my .375 Alaskans came with Torx screws on the rings and a friends new '06 Hawkeye has them as well.
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 7
My 9.3x74R may have been in stock for awhile somewhere?
RiverRider
Handloader
- Dec 9, 2008
- 1,454
- 107
I swapped into an old 77V in .220 a few years ago. The rifle was pretty beat up but a little TLC took care of the rough edges. I've managed to get five-shot groups in the 1/2" neighborhood shooting 50-grain V-Max driven by H4895 to around 3900 fps. I am pleased with it!
- Oct 30, 2004
- 24,502
- 3,691
Guy Miner":1dgod1il said:
Amen! Yes they do. Look at Jim's 280 AI
I have four Ruger CF rifles: a .220 Swift in a MK II V/T, a Hawkeye in 6.5 Creedmoor, a stainless .308 Hawkeye, and a .358 stainless in a McMillan.
On the wanted list: .257 Roberts, 9.3x62 African, and one of the 23" barreled .375 Rugers in SS/laminate. Though if I ran across a stainless Whelen and had the money, I'd probably get one of them as well.
Overall, I like them, but I like M70s better!
On the wanted list: .257 Roberts, 9.3x62 African, and one of the 23" barreled .375 Rugers in SS/laminate. Though if I ran across a stainless Whelen and had the money, I'd probably get one of them as well.
Overall, I like them, but I like M70s better!
