The Ruger Model 77 bolt-action rifle has been around for decades now, in one variation or another. I've owned several.
Not one of them ever shot worth a damn for me in terms of accuracy. Not one.
MOA? Pure fantasy with every Ruger Model 77 I've ever owned. I've glass-bedded the actions. Pillar-bedded them, too. Modified or replaced the triggers. None of this should ever have been necessary.
And even after all that, MOA accuracy was still more often a fantasy than a reality. Two inch groups (or worse) were about the best average I could achieve with any of my Ruger Model 77s, even after I spent hours and money attempting to "improve" them. (By the way, I am an MOA or better shooter with my other bolt-action rifles.)
--I suspect the quality (or lack thereof) of Ruger barrels.
--I question the accuracy viability (or lack thereof) of the Model 77's 45-degree large screw which melds stock to action.
--I wonder why Ruger doesn't free-float the barrel in the Model 77, or at least in none of the ones I ever owned.
(In the last 20 years I've owned Ruger 77s in 257 Roberts, 25-06 and .270. Emphasis on the word "owned," as in past tense.)
So here are my questions:
Are Ruger Model 77s accurate rifles in today's America?
Are they accurate compared to Savages or Remington 700s?
Why is it that gun writers tend to gloss over or ignore--rather than justifiably attack--the poor accuracy of Ruger Model 77s in their seemingly endless articles about these rifles?
And who here believes that every bolt action centerfire rifle made by a reputable manufacturer in the U.S. these days--including Ruger--should come with guaranteed MOA accuracy?