Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Rifles

Are Ruger Model 77s Accurate Rifles? I Wonder.

Uploaded on February 03, 2009

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?

T.W. Davidson

Top Rated
All Replies
from jlfreeborn wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

This past summer, i bought a new M77 Hawkeye in .308. I, personally love the rifle. I can shoot MOA no problem. My rifle likes hornady ammo. Compared to the Remington 700, I would say it's about the same.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from infantry08 wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

I, too own a Hawkeye in .308 as well as one in .338 and both will shoot MOA or better (handloads).

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from T.W. Davidson wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

To jlfreeborn and infantry08 . . .

I am happy for you folks that your Ruger Hawkeyes are giving you MOA performance. Perhaps Ruger has finally become aware that here in America, poor accuracy in a brand new American-made hunting rifle just won't cut it anymore, particularly when Savage and Remington (not to mention Weatherby or even Marlin) and other rifle companies are producing rifles that will shoot MOA without any problems, excuses, or hiccups. I'm too jaded to ever buy another Ruger bolt-action rifle, but I am pleased that your rifles are respectively shooting well for you.

TWD

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

I've no experience with newer Ruger rifles. However, I did purchase one, and one only, a sturdy .243 as my son's first rifle around 1974. He had no interest in MOAS, but had no problems killing coyotes, deer, and elk with it. Last summer, I dug out this old rifle, to introduce my grandson to hunting. I took it to the range and shot three rounds you could cover with a dime at 100 yards. I emphasize, it is the only one I've ever owned and it is more than 30 years old. Probably lucky shooting too.

An interesting story regarding the late Bill Ruger.

My son, as kids will do took apart the same .243, and while reassembling lost a part. It's to long ago to remember what one. I ordered a replacement from the dealer/gunsmith. Months went by, accompanied by many excuses, all aiming the fault at Ruger. I finally called Ruger Arms myself, and asked for Customer Service, explaining the problem. My hunch was the dealer had never ordered the part in the first place, which proved to be the case. The man on the phone said, "you will have the part free of charge tomorrow" (which I did!) I indicated I wanted to send a thank you letter to the company and wanted to include his name. He replied, "my name is Bill Ruger here I am Customer Service."

T.W., having rambled on with stories, I must confess, I don't know of any super accurate rifles based on Ruger bolt actions.

+9 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

Pardon the poor English.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from T.W. Davidson wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

Mr. Myles . . .

I enjoy your stories. I think others do, too. Please keep right on rambling.

Back to the Ruger Model 77--

I will say here that I think Ruger Model 77 actions are incredibly strong, perhaps the strongest available in the U.S. except for maybe the Weatherby Mark Vs with their 9 massive locking lugs. And I while I admire (and require) strong bolt actions in all of my rifles, I want accuracy, too. I've just never gotten it with any of the Model 77s I've owned or used. I am glad, however, that some people out there, including you, have had good luck with your Ruger rifles.

TWD

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from doekiller wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

I bought a Ruger Hawkeye in .308 2 years ago. It wouldn't shoot a damn out of the box. Sloppy groups all over the place. The thing drove me nuts. I spoke with a friend, he told me had the same problem but over time his ruger came in, the more he shot it the better it got. He said by about 800 rounds his was perfect. Due to the fact that there are usually a lot of burrs left in Rugers barrels. Well, after many more rounds and the fact that I have started reloading, my rifle has tightened groups better than I would hope for. Sub MOA at 100 yds shooting 178 A max bullets over 44.1 grains of Varget.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Edward J. Palumbo wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

The first Ruger Model 77s that I purchased (a .257 Roberts and a 7x57mm Mauser) were admittedly disappointing in terms of nail-driving accuracy, but they were good choices for deer. I wrote a letter to Sturm, Ruger & Co., and commented that I was relatively satisfied with the rifle's design and handling characteristics, but the unimpressive accuracy (especially of the .257) was somewhat disappointing. In the late '70s and early '80s, a letter like that drew an immediate response, and they were more than willing to examine or service the rifle if it was the fault of the manufacturer. Even today, the customer service at Ruger is praiseworthy and I'm delighted with it.
I've since learned that Ruger did not make their own barrels at that time, and were dependent on a contractor (I believe it was Wilson in Branford, CT) to provide their barrels. At the time, the barrels were inconsistent and accuracy often suffered. You could get a very accurate rifle, or a disappointment. In Jim Carmicheal's book, The Modern Rifle (p.31), he comments, "If you are to be price competitive, you must buy bvarrels from a mass manufacturer, which means that their accuracy will not be what you want or you must make your own."
Ruger was aware of the problem through customer feedback and their own testing, and made the expensive commitment to make their own barrels, to exercise greater control over the quality and consistency of their barrels. That is a formidably expensive venture to acquire the tooling, talent and materiel, and to develop the process to be consistently satisfactory. It was accomplished in stages, and it is my understanding that Ruger is now responsible for its own barrel production.
The Ruger Model 77, from its introduction, was not intended as a "target" rifle. They offer heavy-barreled versions, of course, and some of their varminters are gratifyingly accurate, but a barreled action designed primarily for accuracy has a few shortcomings for the hunter. The Ruger Model 77 (and dozens of other popular rifles) are designed with a few compromises to provide the optimum balance of accuracy and handling characteristics.
Objectively, the Ruger Model 77 is a strong product of modern and intelligent design, and I believe the shooter will be favorably impressed with recently produced Model 77s, but the earlier models did develop a reputation for inconsistent accuracy that I believe was regrettably well-deserved.
Ruger did not stand on its laurels. Their rifles are "not just a pretty face", though you must admit the Model 77 was and is very aesthetically appealing as hunting rifles go. The continual effort to improve their product has elevated Ruger to an enviable reputation among production armsmakers, and I've fired a number of gratifyingly accurate Model 77s in the past decade and more. I must give credit where it is due.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

At one time Ruger contracted all of its barrel work to several companies. Quality was up and down. Ruger now hammer forges thier barrels in house. The quality issue seems to be solved.

That said I have owned and shot a fair number of M77's over the years, short and long action. My Dad owns a early M77 in .308 when they were still made with adjustable triggers. It will stack bullets! It is his favorite big game rifle.

All of the guns I have owned would group well. The worst was probably an inch and one half rifle at one hundred yards. The best of them a 30/06 MK II groups well under an inch.

Savage rifles have been the most accurate I have owned. One 25/06 would shoot 3 shot cloverleaf groups at a hundred.

The worst I ever had was a Remington 700 BDL, Minute of deer was all it would shoot. My wife owned a 700 BDL in .308 that would shoot no better than 3 inches. We rebarreled it with a .260 Remington barrel from Midway and now it is an outstanding rifle capable of subminute groups, from a cheap barrel no less. I have also owned Remington 700's that shot very well.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from kolbster wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

i have an older model ruger m77 in .270 and would not trade it for 3 new remington 700 of any kind. im shooting 1/2 groups at 100yds. it shoots 10 better than my remington 700 30-06.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

At one time back in the seventies I owned at least six M-77's. I am in agreement with Edward J's previous comments considering my remembrances and observations of these rifles. Obviously none were Mark II's of which I have no experience. Calibers ranged from .22 to .338. None were MOA save for the heavy barreled .22-.250 which is the only member of the group still in my possession. It presently has a Douglas barrel as the original gave it up years ago. A fellow at the local range, where Bill Ruger sometimes shot when visiting his ranch in Wyoming, said that Bill told him that quite a few of the early M-77's had Douglas barrels. Apparently these proved to be very accurate leading me to wonder if my heavy barreled .22-.250 was fortunate enough to be included in this group. Perhaps if you not so lucky as to acquire one of these particular rifles you were stuck with a lesser grade barrel from some inexpensive manufacturer which might translate into inferior accuracy. In spite of which barrel my old Rugers had I managed to shoot up all sorts of deer, antelope, elk, coyotes, prairie dogs, as well as various other critters and rocks. Perhaps they were not competition rifles but given what I paid for them I certainly got my money's worth. Oddly enough I sold them for as much as more than I originally paid. Insofar as Weatherby actions they are big and strong and heavy. Rare to see a custom rifle built utilizing the Mark V or the Ruger 77 regardless of the cost.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from PlainsHunter wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

I have a Ruger 77 MK II in .243 (synthetic canoe paddle stock)and it shoots .25" groups at 100 yds with just about any ammo I feed it. Its one of my favorite antelope rifles. Compared to my Remington 700 BDL in .300 Win Mag, its about the same. Compared to my Savage 114 in 30-06, it shoots better. Although I think I just need to glass bed my Savage stock to achieve similar performance.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from platte river rat wrote 5 years 9 weeks ago

I have three Ruger MKII in stainless--260 Rem--280REM--300Win mag--all three have new Hogue over-molted stocks. With my hand loads all three will shoot under 1MOA. Couldn't ask for anymore that that. They reason I restocked---didn't care for the so called plastic canoe paddle.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bugeatingsniper wrote 5 years 5 weeks ago

I have owned dozens of each brand rifles. Ruger offers advantages as do the others. If going for the long shot? I probably would build an M21 clone using a Remington 700 platform. If dropped in the Outback or BF Alaska, give me the Ruger. If I was going to punch paper and nothing more a savage would be fine.

Ruger rifles are "hunter" accurate out of the box. If you want to fine tune the Ruger then talk to someone that knows how. The guy that builds 1/4 MOA Remingtons may not be that guy? Forget the jargon and bed the lug and about 1" of the barrel, use spacers to square action to barrel channel. DyeChem the lugs and make sure the bolt face is locking square. Then, no whitetail would want even the novice shooter to take a shot at 500+ yards. Semper Fi 2/2

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from T.W. Davidson wrote 5 years 5 weeks ago

Bugeatingsniper . . .

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I am saving them for future reference.

I will probably someday give in and purchase (yet another) Ruger. If and when I do, I'll test fire the rifle and see how it will perform. If it isn't MOA or better, then I will implement your suggestions (or, actually, have a talented gunsmith I know do so), and proceed from there.

Semper Fi, VMFP-3, MAG-11, 3d MAW.

TWD

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from louie pasquarelli wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

I have a ruger muzzel loader and love it i'm looking to get away from my 30-06 rem auto and i like the 243w in a light weight gun for deer my choice has narrowed to the savage lightweight or the ruger 77 give me some feed back thanks.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pistolhunter wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

I have the same problem with my Ruger 77 [lightweight] synthetic stock. So I just stated 2 problems ,the stock & being light, too light to shoot well. The stock was not rigid too. I free floated mine with a Dremmel till I can find a heavy aftermarket,that'll help. A aftermarket trigger will help much also. out of box it fired a 2-4 inch group,in reality good enough for 100 yard deer hunting but no rifle should come out of a factory shooting more than a 1 1/2 at least. There is no excuse .I only paid 260$ at a WalMart so I can afford to make it ashooter. If I paid 700$ it better shoot an inch already.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 243ROB wrote 5 years 3 weeks ago

Hello ladies and gents , i am new to this forum. Just had to make mention of ruger acuracy, i have owned three m77 target model in 243 and i have to be honest ,they have all shot extremely well , in 1995 i shot at the provincial championships in ontario and won awards plus placed 3rd and 4th concectuativley in the 1,ooo yd match, so yes i think they shoot very well or the other competitors were lousey shooters which i know they are not. my latest mark 2 shoots amax 105 just fine, and i come in on 8 by 16 inch target quite easily at 700 yds, so just maybe the shooter might not be doing a good job if acuracy is that bad or i just got three better than average ruge which i do not believe so most of the guns to-day shoot better than 75 percent of the shooter, just my thought. he he

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 5 years 2 weeks ago

I have a 1976 manufacture Ruger 77 in .257 Roberts that shoots 1"-1.5" groups with handloads. I got it from a guy who bought it from the original owner some years back. The original owner lamented that it would not shoot worth a crap even with handloads. My buddy gave him $200 for it and dies and bullets. When he loaded some 100 grain Hornady and 100 grain Noslers with H380, it became an accurate shooter. My buddy took a shot target to work and showed the original owner, who immediately wanted to buy back the rifle. My buddy told him, "Tough", and kept the rifle. Now I have it and a supply of Jim's handloads that shoot well. I have not tried any of my roll your own's yet. David Petzal told me that Douglas was one of the several barrel shops that supplied Ruger around 1976, so maybe I lucked out.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 5 years 1 week ago

I have an M77 in .243 I bought about 10 years ago. It definitely has gotten better w/ age. It's basically a backup deer rifle, but it is fairly accurate. Probably not MOA, but I don't shoot competition, I shoot deer, and it has done very well on them. My biggest gripe was the bolt. Mine's a stainless model, and the bolt action was horrendous @ first. Thousands of cyclings, dozens of cleanings/oilings, and a few emery cloth touch ups, and the thing cycles smooth as silk now. I plan on giving this gun to my daughter when she outgrows her youth single shot. I'd imagine an M77 today shoots better groups out of the box than mine does, because American rifles, like so many other products, just keep getting better and better.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ssettle wrote 5 years 4 days ago

I had a 77 a few years ago in 308. Was a pretty rifle but on the heavy side. Best I could do was 1 1/4 inch groups at 100 yards. Was a crappy shooter when I first shot it...5inch group at 50 yards. I traded it after 3 years because it would fail to shoot reloads sometimes. I've own Winchesters and Remington and none shot as bad as that 77.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from joe blaylock wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

I just purchased a Ruger Mark 11 270 wsm. I live in S California where we have a copper only law due the frickin Condors, soon to come to all of you, courtesey of the "Natural Resource Defense Council"! I floated the barrel, bedded the action too just in front of the start of the barrel tapper, glassed the rails and tang. Shot ten lead jacked bullets thru new barrel, cleaning after each shot. Loaded Barnes 110 TTSX with RL19, set it 50 thousands off measured lands, shot three shots to foul barrel and then shot a six shot 3/4 inch group. The action is rough and the trigger is not very good as you know. However the thing feels quick in the hands, and will be my favorite all copper bullet gun from now on. AND If you thing I am kidding about all copper,,, see my article in the Fillmore Gazette (on line)search for "Baseball,Bullets,Condors,and more Guns fillmore Gazette.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Reid Jones wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

HELL YES

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Going by what I've heard here and elsewhere, it seems the problem is fixed.

I would like to see guaranteed MOA accuracy, given that many inexpensive rifles are shooting those groups now, but I doubt many manufacturers that aren't doing it already will. I could see everyone guaranteeing 1.5, and would be satisfied with that. If 1.5 is guaranteed, it is likely that most will shoot better. If you can't guarantee your bolt action rifles (at least the ones at or below .338 caliber) to shoot that well, you need to do some R&D. You look silly if your 800 dollar product is being outshot by three and four-hundred dollar ones.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Shane, i agree. There are a lot of $400.oo rifles made the past couple years that will outshoot the bulk of the $700-1000 rifles of the past decade. It's great for the consumer. That said, these $1000 guns that are being outshot by the $400 ones have many features and upgrades that may outweigh the 1/4 or half MOA advantage. Personally i am glad the budget rifle makers are keeping the higher end makers honest these days. I have a long wish list of rifles and if they can shot MOA on my budget,...Awesome.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 007 wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

The gunsmith who is building my .338-06 on a Ruger Mk II action told me that the Rugers prior to the advent of the Hawkeye were getting pretty crappy toward the end but the Hawkeye has resurrected the proud Ruger name.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Since my last post (above), I fired my 1976 M-77 .257 Roberts with some 100 gr. Hornady SP, 100 gr. Barnes TSX, and 120 gr. Nosler Partitions; all with acceptable accuracy. Del or someone posted a while back that the tang safety was dangerous, i.e. easily bumped into fire position accidentally. I have not found that to be a problem and I usually don't have a round chambered until I am ready to shoot or sitting on stand.

The Ruger is a keeper and the Winchester M-70 is for sale to finance another rifle deal.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 175rltw wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

I have a ruger compact in 308. and here are the facts. It feels far lighter than it is- and a rifle this size and as trim as this should weigh about a lb less than this one does. but it feels the right weight. It shoots most 165 grn loads into 2.5 to 6 inch groups at one hundred yds (scuse me- 2.5-6 MOA) I talked to Hill Country Rifles and they said send it down, they'll guarntee 1 moa out of it- but they wouldn't do the same if it was in 260. Huh. When I get around to it, I'l let HCR have at it and see how it comes back. I bed my own rifles usually, but this I gotta see. I have faith in those guys, They built me a custom weahtby vanguard which is awesome, but we'll see how it goes.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

I would be interested to know the results.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 175rltw wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

yeah definately those guys do great work but this I gotta see, lik eI said they were all about it, but said specifically that they had NO interest in doing the same job on that rifle in 260.

on a side note a buddy has the same gun which is pretty consistently 1-2 MOA, but never sub MOA.

If I was going to really invest time and money in this rifle I would get the reciever milled to lose some weight, all aorund starting with the integral bases, so it would accept 2 piece Talley light weights. Like I say, the accuracy is a little troubling but I know it can be improved- but how on earth does this tiny little gun weigh 6 lbs???

Bottom line I don't think I'd ever consider A ruger 77 action as the bassis for a custom build, and If I was going to buy another ruger it'd be in 338 or 375, sonething big since the things are so stout and heavy, it's a match made in heaven.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

If they can charge that much, and supply those features that are worth the money and accuracy downgrade, they can surely improve the accuracy as well. The techniques and technology are there. You make a good point, but if cheap rifle makers can get that kind of accuracy, all the more reason for those nicely featured rifles to be just as good. Accuracy is THE number one feature of just about any rifle (with the exception of rifles like those stout and heavy Rugers, and anything for similar use), so if you're gonna be top-notch in other areas, you BETTER be top notch in accuracy too.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

I wonder why they wouldn't do work on a .260? Anybody have any clues?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Dunno. Jim Carmicheal of OL thinks highly of the .260 though. Maybe there are a bit underbore(?) for the pressure of the .308 Win case? I have never seen anyone with one or know anyone who owns one.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 175rltw wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

I think it may be due to the factory ammo out there, as they test these guns and do there sub moa accuracy guarantee with factory ammo. they wouldn't offer a guarantee with kimbers for a while either, not sure about now. they said kimbers are high quality guns that we don't offer a guarantee on, due to our inability to get consistent results with them. Back to the 260, there aren't alot of factory offerings you know, and they may all be crap for all i know, ihave a 257 bob and a 7mm08 so no need or desire for a 260.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from hjohn429 wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

I love them and yes they are very accurate. My dad has a Ruger M77 in 6mm Remington and it gets 1/4" groups at 100 yards:)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

175rltw

The .257 Roberts is probably the only small bore you would ever need, but that's just me...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 175rltw wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

yeah I bought my son a 243 this year, but only because it made more since to buy a savage youth rifle for 275 bucks than it did to try to find a bob and get it cut down etc, he's almost 6. I'll use the Bob for anything with 120 partitions, though it's not my goto gun for big critters by any stretch... I have an old model 722 and a cooper niether of which I use very extensively, I keep thinking about building another one as a real every day user.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 007 wrote 4 years 34 weeks ago

WA Mtnhunter, I have a Ruger 77 ultralight in .257 Roberts that shoots well once I found a load it likes and at 6 1/4#, it's a joy to carry. I first tried 100 gr. bullets and it looked like a shotgun pattern. Went to Remington 120 grain corelokts (since discontinued, thank you very much, big green) and a warm load of IMR 4350 and it shoots like the proverbial house afire. It has a permanent home. Have since found a Savage 110 or 111, can't remember which, for my daughter that shoots the load just as well, or nothing better. We do like the Roberts.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from libertyfirst wrote 4 years 34 weeks ago

I have re-barreled a bunch of early Ruger 77 actions with Shilen bbls and all are excellent shooters. I believe that the issue with this rifle early on was, as many have said previously, the barrels. I have one of the newer rifles in .308 and it is a very fine shooting rifle

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 34 weeks ago

Mine shoots 100 gr TSX and Hornady Interlocks very well and Federal 120 gr NP.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 4 years 34 weeks ago

Regarding the .257 Bob, I know a fellow who has one made on an old Mauser military action. It weighs about two pounds more than it should but the old guy does not seem to mind. He has killed many elk, lots of deer and antelope, plus at least one moose using factory loads. No one apparently told him he was undergunned so he just went ahead and got the job done with the Bob. He is a careful shooter and usually short range shots as his eyes are not the best even through the El Paso Weaver 4 x.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bradenator wrote 4 years 34 weeks ago

Very good and accurate

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 4 years 34 weeks ago

My brother has on in .280rem. and he loves it. It is fairly accurrate with the limited supply of factory loads available for it. I'm guessing a handloader could really get good groups from it. I will say, it's a bit more attractive than my Savage, if not as accurrate.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

I have had several Rugers and the onlyone that I had that would shoot at all was a 257 Lightweight. All of the others I have had I soon got rid of.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from spartan88 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Man this is an old thread. But for anyone interested. I have a 77/22 and it shoots just fine. Any shots that do not go where I want them to go are because of bad breathing and pulling the trigger too hard. The accuracy does not compare to my dads anschutz but I have no complaints. I wouldn't use it as a competition target rifle but I don't see any issues it could cause for plinking or hunting.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from mark32 wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

i own 3 ruger 77 in 22-250, 300 win mag and 243
out of the box they all shot at least 1 in groups
but i handload. the 22-250 1/2 groups and better.
the 300 mag 1 in groups at 100yrds. my 243 is not stock but it is a ruger action and i have it set up for long range i shoot milk jugs at 1000 yards

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Cbass wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

My expreience with Ruger rifles leads me to believe that they are as accurate as they need to be, and sometimes even better than that.

I own two M77 MK II rifles. I bought my first one, a stainless .30-06, in 1994 when I was fifteen. I'd sold my Marlin .30-30 and used all my confirmation money, and just had enough. It was money well spent. My '06 has taken more whitetail for me than any of my others, ranging from 20 yards to 310 yards, and when I miss it's my fault.

In 2008, I bought Ruger's M77 target model in .243 with the fat laminate stock and the heavy barrel. What a shooter- 2.5" groups at 300 yards! It also has the user-friendly 2-stage trigger.

A Ruger M77 is a good rifle for the money. Period.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from spartan88 wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

don't forget most ruger's are tougher than nails.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

The latest edition of Eastman's Hunting Journal rated 10 bolt action rifles. The Ruger got the lowest accuracy numbers of all the models that were rated.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

By what your saying, your problem just may be in your scope.

The next time your out shooting try this.

Shooting from a bench or other solid rest, aim at the target about 100+ yards out. Now without moving or disturbing the rifle, move your head up and down, side to side and all around. Does the cross hairs appear to move off the target? I wasted 3 boxes of ammo in my early years because of this when I discovered this flaw in allot of scopes.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Cloverleaf wrote 2 years 36 weeks ago

I have only owned two Ruger M77s but my personal experience with them has been very good. The first was a 7mm Rem Mag I bought in the "200th Year of American Liberty". I was young and foolish and bought it because I liked the looks. The Winchesters were too dull, and everybody knew they weren't as good after 64. The Remingtons were too "shiny". The Rugers were just right. I topped it with a Redfield 4-12. The local club I belonged to at that time only had a 100 range so I sighted it about 3/4 inch high to get a 200 yard zero. It could shoot sub MOA all day long.
That was then and this is now. Now I have arthritis and shooting any of my magnums became a painfull endevor. I sold all my magnums including my Ruger. I now have a very nice collection of less painfull .308 Win and smaller caliber rifles. These include a Ruger Mark II heavy barrel target gray stainless in .308. I did not like the laminated stock as the grip area was too thick for my hand. I restocked it with a Hogue with full length aluminum bed. I have Hogues on 2 other rifle with factory stocks of questionable worth and much prefer them. When I do my part this rifle also shoots sub MOA. I find it a little heavy to carry all day but it is my choice for stand shooting.
This is not to say I am a die hard Ruger fan. I "had" a very early Mini 14 that would barely keep it's .223 rounds in a pie plate at 100 yards. Then again I have a Deerfield in .44 Rem Mag, based on the Mini 14 action, that shoots acceptable 1 1/2 to 2 inch groups. I "had" a 77/22 that strung its shots toward 2 oclock as it heated up. But then I have a 10/22 carbine that groups almost as well as my 10/22 target heavy barrel. Go figure?
As others have commented, Ruger has, in the last few years, updated much of it's machinery and now makes it's own barrels. I think you will find recent manufacture to be much more accurate. Beware the older Rugers, they are a crap shoot. If you are buying used, ask to try before you buy. As with any firearm, if they say "no" there is probably a good reason.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from iron giant wrote 2 years 36 weeks ago

I have a Ruger M77 Mk II in 30-06. I shoot half inch groups with 180g Remington Corelokts. I absolutely love the thing. It is an older rifle that I bought used, so I must have lucked out.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Redbone wrote 2 years 35 weeks ago

In my opinion I would pick a remington. I own a ruger .375 hawkeye alaskan and it shoots about 1 inch groups at 100 yards proably a little smaller but recoil is a problem even with a shoulder pad. My remington 700 shoots em under a dime size with my handloads. Yes every modern rifle should shoot moa but I believe a lot could with the right ammo. No one is going to believe this but I have a stock mini 14 made in i believe 98 that shoots a little over an inch at 100 yards with handloaded 55 grain ballistic tips in a military 556 case. Yes I know you shouldnt shoot 556 in a 223 gun. My buddy has a ruger hawkeye in 308 and it groups about an inch too. I always say if I couldnt have a remington bolt gun my next choice would be a ruger. My dads 7mm ruger shoots pretty well also. Sorry your having problems with them. Try sweets 7.62 in your barrel maybe its fouled up.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Llanero wrote 2 years 29 weeks ago

An old topic, but one that deserves revitalizing from time to time. Excellent stuff here!

I have had exeprience with four 77s: a older tang-safety Ultralight in .257 Roberts; a canoe-paddle All-Weather in '06 with iron sights and a Warn RTZ mount carrying a Leupold B&C scope; a standard Mk II in .257 Roberts; and a standard Mk II in .308.

I've had great luck with all four of them. The U/L had no problem making MOA with factory ammo. The '06 (my regular deer rifle) likewise. The .308 I haven't shot very much, yet, but sighting it in with 150 Core-Lokts it made MOA without breaking a sweat. The .257 is a tack-driver with hand loads, going .5 MOA with several of them.

Like I said, I guess I've been lucky with my Rugers. They are beautiful, sturdy, reliable rifles and when they also shoot well... well, what more do you want? Maybe a decent trrigger? Yeah, a decent adjustable factory trigger would be super. Savage is eating Ol' Bill's lunch on that score.

Other than that, it's all good.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Johnny Wallace wrote 1 year 6 days ago

My first rifle was a used old model m77 in 243. I bought it used and has always been a great shooting gun. With just a bushnell 3x9 and 100gn factory winchester I can consistently should nickel sized groups at 100yds on a bench. Prone position also gives similar results. At 300 yds I hit 8x8 inch steel all day long. My current avg groups were bested by a friend who was a much better shot.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from allegnmtn wrote 1 year 4 days ago

I've had a .308 M77 since 1988. It shot MOA right out of the box and still does today. I own a Rem 700 in .270 Win and a Savage 25 in .204 Ruger. The Ruger and Savage are comparable in terms of accuracy off the bench. But for me, the Ruger has the best natural to the shoulder feel and fit of any rifle I've ever shot. I'm not trading mine.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from DakotaMan wrote 48 weeks 1 day ago

You won't see many Rugers 77s at a prairie dog town or at benchrest competitions. They are reliable enough and accurate enough to hit a deer at 100 yards so they have a purpose. Getting a barrel that is accurate is certainly achievable but it costs money (unless you get them from Japan; as in Howa).

The barrels on many top selling brands are approaching sub-MOA but you can still get an outcast unless you go for the Weatherby guarantee on their Vanguards (i.e. Howas). The Savage, Howa 1500, Tikka T3 and Rem 700 brands are turning out pretty good accuracy in relatively low priced models. However, you can still get a dud.

Nowadays, if you buy a top of the line model (e.g. Rem 700 Sendero) you can be pretty well assured of getting an accurate barrel over the counter.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 48 weeks 1 day ago

DakotaMan,

My 1976 Ruger 77 has a barrel furnished to Ruger by Douglas, I believe and is reasonably accurate and shoots one inch groups with some loads. Not a bench rifle to be sure but plenty good enough for the woods and mountains. Your points are well taken.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 48 weeks 1 day ago

The most accurate firearms that I have bought over the counter in the last ten years and there have been several have been my Tikka T3 Lites and my Sako A7. The Weatherby Vanguard shot well but not quite as well as the Tikkas and the Sako.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bellringer wrote 45 weeks 4 days ago

My early production M77 shoots just fine, maybe you guys should find somtthing esle to gripe about

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from thedoveshooter wrote 11 weeks 5 days ago

My dad bought me a Ruger 77 Mk.II in 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser for my first rifle back in 1998. The only modification we made was putting a Timney trigger on it. It has ALWAYS been very accurate. I've seldom found a load (factory or handloads) that it has not shot sub MOA. It even likes Swedish surplus. Its nothing fancy but its a tack driver and it fills the freezer. My dad also bought the same rifle in .257 Roberts and its almost as accurate (I may be a little biased with that statement).

I've always laughed when people say Rugers aren't accurate and that their actions aren't smooth. All I do is hand them my rifle and let them work the bolt and they know otherwise.

I own many rifles but my Ruger will be the last I get rid of.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Reply

from Happy Myles wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

I've no experience with newer Ruger rifles. However, I did purchase one, and one only, a sturdy .243 as my son's first rifle around 1974. He had no interest in MOAS, but had no problems killing coyotes, deer, and elk with it. Last summer, I dug out this old rifle, to introduce my grandson to hunting. I took it to the range and shot three rounds you could cover with a dime at 100 yards. I emphasize, it is the only one I've ever owned and it is more than 30 years old. Probably lucky shooting too.

An interesting story regarding the late Bill Ruger.

My son, as kids will do took apart the same .243, and while reassembling lost a part. It's to long ago to remember what one. I ordered a replacement from the dealer/gunsmith. Months went by, accompanied by many excuses, all aiming the fault at Ruger. I finally called Ruger Arms myself, and asked for Customer Service, explaining the problem. My hunch was the dealer had never ordered the part in the first place, which proved to be the case. The man on the phone said, "you will have the part free of charge tomorrow" (which I did!) I indicated I wanted to send a thank you letter to the company and wanted to include his name. He replied, "my name is Bill Ruger here I am Customer Service."

T.W., having rambled on with stories, I must confess, I don't know of any super accurate rifles based on Ruger bolt actions.

+9 Good Comment? | | Report
from Edward J. Palumbo wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

The first Ruger Model 77s that I purchased (a .257 Roberts and a 7x57mm Mauser) were admittedly disappointing in terms of nail-driving accuracy, but they were good choices for deer. I wrote a letter to Sturm, Ruger & Co., and commented that I was relatively satisfied with the rifle's design and handling characteristics, but the unimpressive accuracy (especially of the .257) was somewhat disappointing. In the late '70s and early '80s, a letter like that drew an immediate response, and they were more than willing to examine or service the rifle if it was the fault of the manufacturer. Even today, the customer service at Ruger is praiseworthy and I'm delighted with it.
I've since learned that Ruger did not make their own barrels at that time, and were dependent on a contractor (I believe it was Wilson in Branford, CT) to provide their barrels. At the time, the barrels were inconsistent and accuracy often suffered. You could get a very accurate rifle, or a disappointment. In Jim Carmicheal's book, The Modern Rifle (p.31), he comments, "If you are to be price competitive, you must buy bvarrels from a mass manufacturer, which means that their accuracy will not be what you want or you must make your own."
Ruger was aware of the problem through customer feedback and their own testing, and made the expensive commitment to make their own barrels, to exercise greater control over the quality and consistency of their barrels. That is a formidably expensive venture to acquire the tooling, talent and materiel, and to develop the process to be consistently satisfactory. It was accomplished in stages, and it is my understanding that Ruger is now responsible for its own barrel production.
The Ruger Model 77, from its introduction, was not intended as a "target" rifle. They offer heavy-barreled versions, of course, and some of their varminters are gratifyingly accurate, but a barreled action designed primarily for accuracy has a few shortcomings for the hunter. The Ruger Model 77 (and dozens of other popular rifles) are designed with a few compromises to provide the optimum balance of accuracy and handling characteristics.
Objectively, the Ruger Model 77 is a strong product of modern and intelligent design, and I believe the shooter will be favorably impressed with recently produced Model 77s, but the earlier models did develop a reputation for inconsistent accuracy that I believe was regrettably well-deserved.
Ruger did not stand on its laurels. Their rifles are "not just a pretty face", though you must admit the Model 77 was and is very aesthetically appealing as hunting rifles go. The continual effort to improve their product has elevated Ruger to an enviable reputation among production armsmakers, and I've fired a number of gratifyingly accurate Model 77s in the past decade and more. I must give credit where it is due.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from infantry08 wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

I, too own a Hawkeye in .308 as well as one in .338 and both will shoot MOA or better (handloads).

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bugeatingsniper wrote 5 years 5 weeks ago

I have owned dozens of each brand rifles. Ruger offers advantages as do the others. If going for the long shot? I probably would build an M21 clone using a Remington 700 platform. If dropped in the Outback or BF Alaska, give me the Ruger. If I was going to punch paper and nothing more a savage would be fine.

Ruger rifles are "hunter" accurate out of the box. If you want to fine tune the Ruger then talk to someone that knows how. The guy that builds 1/4 MOA Remingtons may not be that guy? Forget the jargon and bed the lug and about 1" of the barrel, use spacers to square action to barrel channel. DyeChem the lugs and make sure the bolt face is locking square. Then, no whitetail would want even the novice shooter to take a shot at 500+ yards. Semper Fi 2/2

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Cbass wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

My expreience with Ruger rifles leads me to believe that they are as accurate as they need to be, and sometimes even better than that.

I own two M77 MK II rifles. I bought my first one, a stainless .30-06, in 1994 when I was fifteen. I'd sold my Marlin .30-30 and used all my confirmation money, and just had enough. It was money well spent. My '06 has taken more whitetail for me than any of my others, ranging from 20 yards to 310 yards, and when I miss it's my fault.

In 2008, I bought Ruger's M77 target model in .243 with the fat laminate stock and the heavy barrel. What a shooter- 2.5" groups at 300 yards! It also has the user-friendly 2-stage trigger.

A Ruger M77 is a good rifle for the money. Period.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from T.W. Davidson wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

To jlfreeborn and infantry08 . . .

I am happy for you folks that your Ruger Hawkeyes are giving you MOA performance. Perhaps Ruger has finally become aware that here in America, poor accuracy in a brand new American-made hunting rifle just won't cut it anymore, particularly when Savage and Remington (not to mention Weatherby or even Marlin) and other rifle companies are producing rifles that will shoot MOA without any problems, excuses, or hiccups. I'm too jaded to ever buy another Ruger bolt-action rifle, but I am pleased that your rifles are respectively shooting well for you.

TWD

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

At one time Ruger contracted all of its barrel work to several companies. Quality was up and down. Ruger now hammer forges thier barrels in house. The quality issue seems to be solved.

That said I have owned and shot a fair number of M77's over the years, short and long action. My Dad owns a early M77 in .308 when they were still made with adjustable triggers. It will stack bullets! It is his favorite big game rifle.

All of the guns I have owned would group well. The worst was probably an inch and one half rifle at one hundred yards. The best of them a 30/06 MK II groups well under an inch.

Savage rifles have been the most accurate I have owned. One 25/06 would shoot 3 shot cloverleaf groups at a hundred.

The worst I ever had was a Remington 700 BDL, Minute of deer was all it would shoot. My wife owned a 700 BDL in .308 that would shoot no better than 3 inches. We rebarreled it with a .260 Remington barrel from Midway and now it is an outstanding rifle capable of subminute groups, from a cheap barrel no less. I have also owned Remington 700's that shot very well.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from kolbster wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

i have an older model ruger m77 in .270 and would not trade it for 3 new remington 700 of any kind. im shooting 1/2 groups at 100yds. it shoots 10 better than my remington 700 30-06.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

At one time back in the seventies I owned at least six M-77's. I am in agreement with Edward J's previous comments considering my remembrances and observations of these rifles. Obviously none were Mark II's of which I have no experience. Calibers ranged from .22 to .338. None were MOA save for the heavy barreled .22-.250 which is the only member of the group still in my possession. It presently has a Douglas barrel as the original gave it up years ago. A fellow at the local range, where Bill Ruger sometimes shot when visiting his ranch in Wyoming, said that Bill told him that quite a few of the early M-77's had Douglas barrels. Apparently these proved to be very accurate leading me to wonder if my heavy barreled .22-.250 was fortunate enough to be included in this group. Perhaps if you not so lucky as to acquire one of these particular rifles you were stuck with a lesser grade barrel from some inexpensive manufacturer which might translate into inferior accuracy. In spite of which barrel my old Rugers had I managed to shoot up all sorts of deer, antelope, elk, coyotes, prairie dogs, as well as various other critters and rocks. Perhaps they were not competition rifles but given what I paid for them I certainly got my money's worth. Oddly enough I sold them for as much as more than I originally paid. Insofar as Weatherby actions they are big and strong and heavy. Rare to see a custom rifle built utilizing the Mark V or the Ruger 77 regardless of the cost.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from platte river rat wrote 5 years 9 weeks ago

I have three Ruger MKII in stainless--260 Rem--280REM--300Win mag--all three have new Hogue over-molted stocks. With my hand loads all three will shoot under 1MOA. Couldn't ask for anymore that that. They reason I restocked---didn't care for the so called plastic canoe paddle.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Shane, i agree. There are a lot of $400.oo rifles made the past couple years that will outshoot the bulk of the $700-1000 rifles of the past decade. It's great for the consumer. That said, these $1000 guns that are being outshot by the $400 ones have many features and upgrades that may outweigh the 1/4 or half MOA advantage. Personally i am glad the budget rifle makers are keeping the higher end makers honest these days. I have a long wish list of rifles and if they can shot MOA on my budget,...Awesome.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 175rltw wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

I have a ruger compact in 308. and here are the facts. It feels far lighter than it is- and a rifle this size and as trim as this should weigh about a lb less than this one does. but it feels the right weight. It shoots most 165 grn loads into 2.5 to 6 inch groups at one hundred yds (scuse me- 2.5-6 MOA) I talked to Hill Country Rifles and they said send it down, they'll guarntee 1 moa out of it- but they wouldn't do the same if it was in 260. Huh. When I get around to it, I'l let HCR have at it and see how it comes back. I bed my own rifles usually, but this I gotta see. I have faith in those guys, They built me a custom weahtby vanguard which is awesome, but we'll see how it goes.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

I would be interested to know the results.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 175rltw wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

yeah definately those guys do great work but this I gotta see, lik eI said they were all about it, but said specifically that they had NO interest in doing the same job on that rifle in 260.

on a side note a buddy has the same gun which is pretty consistently 1-2 MOA, but never sub MOA.

If I was going to really invest time and money in this rifle I would get the reciever milled to lose some weight, all aorund starting with the integral bases, so it would accept 2 piece Talley light weights. Like I say, the accuracy is a little troubling but I know it can be improved- but how on earth does this tiny little gun weigh 6 lbs???

Bottom line I don't think I'd ever consider A ruger 77 action as the bassis for a custom build, and If I was going to buy another ruger it'd be in 338 or 375, sonething big since the things are so stout and heavy, it's a match made in heaven.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

175rltw

The .257 Roberts is probably the only small bore you would ever need, but that's just me...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from mark32 wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

i own 3 ruger 77 in 22-250, 300 win mag and 243
out of the box they all shot at least 1 in groups
but i handload. the 22-250 1/2 groups and better.
the 300 mag 1 in groups at 100yrds. my 243 is not stock but it is a ruger action and i have it set up for long range i shoot milk jugs at 1000 yards

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from spartan88 wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

don't forget most ruger's are tougher than nails.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jlfreeborn wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

This past summer, i bought a new M77 Hawkeye in .308. I, personally love the rifle. I can shoot MOA no problem. My rifle likes hornady ammo. Compared to the Remington 700, I would say it's about the same.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

Pardon the poor English.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from T.W. Davidson wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

Mr. Myles . . .

I enjoy your stories. I think others do, too. Please keep right on rambling.

Back to the Ruger Model 77--

I will say here that I think Ruger Model 77 actions are incredibly strong, perhaps the strongest available in the U.S. except for maybe the Weatherby Mark Vs with their 9 massive locking lugs. And I while I admire (and require) strong bolt actions in all of my rifles, I want accuracy, too. I've just never gotten it with any of the Model 77s I've owned or used. I am glad, however, that some people out there, including you, have had good luck with your Ruger rifles.

TWD

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from doekiller wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

I bought a Ruger Hawkeye in .308 2 years ago. It wouldn't shoot a damn out of the box. Sloppy groups all over the place. The thing drove me nuts. I spoke with a friend, he told me had the same problem but over time his ruger came in, the more he shot it the better it got. He said by about 800 rounds his was perfect. Due to the fact that there are usually a lot of burrs left in Rugers barrels. Well, after many more rounds and the fact that I have started reloading, my rifle has tightened groups better than I would hope for. Sub MOA at 100 yds shooting 178 A max bullets over 44.1 grains of Varget.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from PlainsHunter wrote 5 years 10 weeks ago

I have a Ruger 77 MK II in .243 (synthetic canoe paddle stock)and it shoots .25" groups at 100 yds with just about any ammo I feed it. Its one of my favorite antelope rifles. Compared to my Remington 700 BDL in .300 Win Mag, its about the same. Compared to my Savage 114 in 30-06, it shoots better. Although I think I just need to glass bed my Savage stock to achieve similar performance.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from T.W. Davidson wrote 5 years 5 weeks ago

Bugeatingsniper . . .

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I am saving them for future reference.

I will probably someday give in and purchase (yet another) Ruger. If and when I do, I'll test fire the rifle and see how it will perform. If it isn't MOA or better, then I will implement your suggestions (or, actually, have a talented gunsmith I know do so), and proceed from there.

Semper Fi, VMFP-3, MAG-11, 3d MAW.

TWD

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from louie pasquarelli wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

I have a ruger muzzel loader and love it i'm looking to get away from my 30-06 rem auto and i like the 243w in a light weight gun for deer my choice has narrowed to the savage lightweight or the ruger 77 give me some feed back thanks.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pistolhunter wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

I have the same problem with my Ruger 77 [lightweight] synthetic stock. So I just stated 2 problems ,the stock & being light, too light to shoot well. The stock was not rigid too. I free floated mine with a Dremmel till I can find a heavy aftermarket,that'll help. A aftermarket trigger will help much also. out of box it fired a 2-4 inch group,in reality good enough for 100 yard deer hunting but no rifle should come out of a factory shooting more than a 1 1/2 at least. There is no excuse .I only paid 260$ at a WalMart so I can afford to make it ashooter. If I paid 700$ it better shoot an inch already.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 243ROB wrote 5 years 3 weeks ago

Hello ladies and gents , i am new to this forum. Just had to make mention of ruger acuracy, i have owned three m77 target model in 243 and i have to be honest ,they have all shot extremely well , in 1995 i shot at the provincial championships in ontario and won awards plus placed 3rd and 4th concectuativley in the 1,ooo yd match, so yes i think they shoot very well or the other competitors were lousey shooters which i know they are not. my latest mark 2 shoots amax 105 just fine, and i come in on 8 by 16 inch target quite easily at 700 yds, so just maybe the shooter might not be doing a good job if acuracy is that bad or i just got three better than average ruge which i do not believe so most of the guns to-day shoot better than 75 percent of the shooter, just my thought. he he

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 5 years 2 weeks ago

I have a 1976 manufacture Ruger 77 in .257 Roberts that shoots 1"-1.5" groups with handloads. I got it from a guy who bought it from the original owner some years back. The original owner lamented that it would not shoot worth a crap even with handloads. My buddy gave him $200 for it and dies and bullets. When he loaded some 100 grain Hornady and 100 grain Noslers with H380, it became an accurate shooter. My buddy took a shot target to work and showed the original owner, who immediately wanted to buy back the rifle. My buddy told him, "Tough", and kept the rifle. Now I have it and a supply of Jim's handloads that shoot well. I have not tried any of my roll your own's yet. David Petzal told me that Douglas was one of the several barrel shops that supplied Ruger around 1976, so maybe I lucked out.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 5 years 1 week ago

I have an M77 in .243 I bought about 10 years ago. It definitely has gotten better w/ age. It's basically a backup deer rifle, but it is fairly accurate. Probably not MOA, but I don't shoot competition, I shoot deer, and it has done very well on them. My biggest gripe was the bolt. Mine's a stainless model, and the bolt action was horrendous @ first. Thousands of cyclings, dozens of cleanings/oilings, and a few emery cloth touch ups, and the thing cycles smooth as silk now. I plan on giving this gun to my daughter when she outgrows her youth single shot. I'd imagine an M77 today shoots better groups out of the box than mine does, because American rifles, like so many other products, just keep getting better and better.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from joe blaylock wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

I just purchased a Ruger Mark 11 270 wsm. I live in S California where we have a copper only law due the frickin Condors, soon to come to all of you, courtesey of the "Natural Resource Defense Council"! I floated the barrel, bedded the action too just in front of the start of the barrel tapper, glassed the rails and tang. Shot ten lead jacked bullets thru new barrel, cleaning after each shot. Loaded Barnes 110 TTSX with RL19, set it 50 thousands off measured lands, shot three shots to foul barrel and then shot a six shot 3/4 inch group. The action is rough and the trigger is not very good as you know. However the thing feels quick in the hands, and will be my favorite all copper bullet gun from now on. AND If you thing I am kidding about all copper,,, see my article in the Fillmore Gazette (on line)search for "Baseball,Bullets,Condors,and more Guns fillmore Gazette.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

Going by what I've heard here and elsewhere, it seems the problem is fixed.

I would like to see guaranteed MOA accuracy, given that many inexpensive rifles are shooting those groups now, but I doubt many manufacturers that aren't doing it already will. I could see everyone guaranteeing 1.5, and would be satisfied with that. If 1.5 is guaranteed, it is likely that most will shoot better. If you can't guarantee your bolt action rifles (at least the ones at or below .338 caliber) to shoot that well, you need to do some R&D. You look silly if your 800 dollar product is being outshot by three and four-hundred dollar ones.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 007 wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

The gunsmith who is building my .338-06 on a Ruger Mk II action told me that the Rugers prior to the advent of the Hawkeye were getting pretty crappy toward the end but the Hawkeye has resurrected the proud Ruger name.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Since my last post (above), I fired my 1976 M-77 .257 Roberts with some 100 gr. Hornady SP, 100 gr. Barnes TSX, and 120 gr. Nosler Partitions; all with acceptable accuracy. Del or someone posted a while back that the tang safety was dangerous, i.e. easily bumped into fire position accidentally. I have not found that to be a problem and I usually don't have a round chambered until I am ready to shoot or sitting on stand.

The Ruger is a keeper and the Winchester M-70 is for sale to finance another rifle deal.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

If they can charge that much, and supply those features that are worth the money and accuracy downgrade, they can surely improve the accuracy as well. The techniques and technology are there. You make a good point, but if cheap rifle makers can get that kind of accuracy, all the more reason for those nicely featured rifles to be just as good. Accuracy is THE number one feature of just about any rifle (with the exception of rifles like those stout and heavy Rugers, and anything for similar use), so if you're gonna be top-notch in other areas, you BETTER be top notch in accuracy too.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 175rltw wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

yeah I bought my son a 243 this year, but only because it made more since to buy a savage youth rifle for 275 bucks than it did to try to find a bob and get it cut down etc, he's almost 6. I'll use the Bob for anything with 120 partitions, though it's not my goto gun for big critters by any stretch... I have an old model 722 and a cooper niether of which I use very extensively, I keep thinking about building another one as a real every day user.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 4 years 34 weeks ago

Regarding the .257 Bob, I know a fellow who has one made on an old Mauser military action. It weighs about two pounds more than it should but the old guy does not seem to mind. He has killed many elk, lots of deer and antelope, plus at least one moose using factory loads. No one apparently told him he was undergunned so he just went ahead and got the job done with the Bob. He is a careful shooter and usually short range shots as his eyes are not the best even through the El Paso Weaver 4 x.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bradenator wrote 4 years 34 weeks ago

Very good and accurate

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 4 years 34 weeks ago

My brother has on in .280rem. and he loves it. It is fairly accurrate with the limited supply of factory loads available for it. I'm guessing a handloader could really get good groups from it. I will say, it's a bit more attractive than my Savage, if not as accurrate.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

I have had several Rugers and the onlyone that I had that would shoot at all was a 257 Lightweight. All of the others I have had I soon got rid of.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from spartan88 wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Man this is an old thread. But for anyone interested. I have a 77/22 and it shoots just fine. Any shots that do not go where I want them to go are because of bad breathing and pulling the trigger too hard. The accuracy does not compare to my dads anschutz but I have no complaints. I wouldn't use it as a competition target rifle but I don't see any issues it could cause for plinking or hunting.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

The latest edition of Eastman's Hunting Journal rated 10 bolt action rifles. The Ruger got the lowest accuracy numbers of all the models that were rated.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 4 weeks ago

By what your saying, your problem just may be in your scope.

The next time your out shooting try this.

Shooting from a bench or other solid rest, aim at the target about 100+ yards out. Now without moving or disturbing the rifle, move your head up and down, side to side and all around. Does the cross hairs appear to move off the target? I wasted 3 boxes of ammo in my early years because of this when I discovered this flaw in allot of scopes.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Cloverleaf wrote 2 years 36 weeks ago

I have only owned two Ruger M77s but my personal experience with them has been very good. The first was a 7mm Rem Mag I bought in the "200th Year of American Liberty". I was young and foolish and bought it because I liked the looks. The Winchesters were too dull, and everybody knew they weren't as good after 64. The Remingtons were too "shiny". The Rugers were just right. I topped it with a Redfield 4-12. The local club I belonged to at that time only had a 100 range so I sighted it about 3/4 inch high to get a 200 yard zero. It could shoot sub MOA all day long.
That was then and this is now. Now I have arthritis and shooting any of my magnums became a painfull endevor. I sold all my magnums including my Ruger. I now have a very nice collection of less painfull .308 Win and smaller caliber rifles. These include a Ruger Mark II heavy barrel target gray stainless in .308. I did not like the laminated stock as the grip area was too thick for my hand. I restocked it with a Hogue with full length aluminum bed. I have Hogues on 2 other rifle with factory stocks of questionable worth and much prefer them. When I do my part this rifle also shoots sub MOA. I find it a little heavy to carry all day but it is my choice for stand shooting.
This is not to say I am a die hard Ruger fan. I "had" a very early Mini 14 that would barely keep it's .223 rounds in a pie plate at 100 yards. Then again I have a Deerfield in .44 Rem Mag, based on the Mini 14 action, that shoots acceptable 1 1/2 to 2 inch groups. I "had" a 77/22 that strung its shots toward 2 oclock as it heated up. But then I have a 10/22 carbine that groups almost as well as my 10/22 target heavy barrel. Go figure?
As others have commented, Ruger has, in the last few years, updated much of it's machinery and now makes it's own barrels. I think you will find recent manufacture to be much more accurate. Beware the older Rugers, they are a crap shoot. If you are buying used, ask to try before you buy. As with any firearm, if they say "no" there is probably a good reason.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from iron giant wrote 2 years 36 weeks ago

I have a Ruger M77 Mk II in 30-06. I shoot half inch groups with 180g Remington Corelokts. I absolutely love the thing. It is an older rifle that I bought used, so I must have lucked out.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Redbone wrote 2 years 35 weeks ago

In my opinion I would pick a remington. I own a ruger .375 hawkeye alaskan and it shoots about 1 inch groups at 100 yards proably a little smaller but recoil is a problem even with a shoulder pad. My remington 700 shoots em under a dime size with my handloads. Yes every modern rifle should shoot moa but I believe a lot could with the right ammo. No one is going to believe this but I have a stock mini 14 made in i believe 98 that shoots a little over an inch at 100 yards with handloaded 55 grain ballistic tips in a military 556 case. Yes I know you shouldnt shoot 556 in a 223 gun. My buddy has a ruger hawkeye in 308 and it groups about an inch too. I always say if I couldnt have a remington bolt gun my next choice would be a ruger. My dads 7mm ruger shoots pretty well also. Sorry your having problems with them. Try sweets 7.62 in your barrel maybe its fouled up.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from thedoveshooter wrote 11 weeks 5 days ago

My dad bought me a Ruger 77 Mk.II in 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser for my first rifle back in 1998. The only modification we made was putting a Timney trigger on it. It has ALWAYS been very accurate. I've seldom found a load (factory or handloads) that it has not shot sub MOA. It even likes Swedish surplus. Its nothing fancy but its a tack driver and it fills the freezer. My dad also bought the same rifle in .257 Roberts and its almost as accurate (I may be a little biased with that statement).

I've always laughed when people say Rugers aren't accurate and that their actions aren't smooth. All I do is hand them my rifle and let them work the bolt and they know otherwise.

I own many rifles but my Ruger will be the last I get rid of.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ssettle wrote 5 years 4 days ago

I had a 77 a few years ago in 308. Was a pretty rifle but on the heavy side. Best I could do was 1 1/4 inch groups at 100 yards. Was a crappy shooter when I first shot it...5inch group at 50 yards. I traded it after 3 years because it would fail to shoot reloads sometimes. I've own Winchesters and Remington and none shot as bad as that 77.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Reid Jones wrote 4 years 38 weeks ago

HELL YES

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

I wonder why they wouldn't do work on a .260? Anybody have any clues?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Dunno. Jim Carmicheal of OL thinks highly of the .260 though. Maybe there are a bit underbore(?) for the pressure of the .308 Win case? I have never seen anyone with one or know anyone who owns one.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 175rltw wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

I think it may be due to the factory ammo out there, as they test these guns and do there sub moa accuracy guarantee with factory ammo. they wouldn't offer a guarantee with kimbers for a while either, not sure about now. they said kimbers are high quality guns that we don't offer a guarantee on, due to our inability to get consistent results with them. Back to the 260, there aren't alot of factory offerings you know, and they may all be crap for all i know, ihave a 257 bob and a 7mm08 so no need or desire for a 260.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from hjohn429 wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

I love them and yes they are very accurate. My dad has a Ruger M77 in 6mm Remington and it gets 1/4" groups at 100 yards:)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 007 wrote 4 years 34 weeks ago

WA Mtnhunter, I have a Ruger 77 ultralight in .257 Roberts that shoots well once I found a load it likes and at 6 1/4#, it's a joy to carry. I first tried 100 gr. bullets and it looked like a shotgun pattern. Went to Remington 120 grain corelokts (since discontinued, thank you very much, big green) and a warm load of IMR 4350 and it shoots like the proverbial house afire. It has a permanent home. Have since found a Savage 110 or 111, can't remember which, for my daughter that shoots the load just as well, or nothing better. We do like the Roberts.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from libertyfirst wrote 4 years 34 weeks ago

I have re-barreled a bunch of early Ruger 77 actions with Shilen bbls and all are excellent shooters. I believe that the issue with this rifle early on was, as many have said previously, the barrels. I have one of the newer rifles in .308 and it is a very fine shooting rifle

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 34 weeks ago

Mine shoots 100 gr TSX and Hornady Interlocks very well and Federal 120 gr NP.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Llanero wrote 2 years 29 weeks ago

An old topic, but one that deserves revitalizing from time to time. Excellent stuff here!

I have had exeprience with four 77s: a older tang-safety Ultralight in .257 Roberts; a canoe-paddle All-Weather in '06 with iron sights and a Warn RTZ mount carrying a Leupold B&C scope; a standard Mk II in .257 Roberts; and a standard Mk II in .308.

I've had great luck with all four of them. The U/L had no problem making MOA with factory ammo. The '06 (my regular deer rifle) likewise. The .308 I haven't shot very much, yet, but sighting it in with 150 Core-Lokts it made MOA without breaking a sweat. The .257 is a tack-driver with hand loads, going .5 MOA with several of them.

Like I said, I guess I've been lucky with my Rugers. They are beautiful, sturdy, reliable rifles and when they also shoot well... well, what more do you want? Maybe a decent trrigger? Yeah, a decent adjustable factory trigger would be super. Savage is eating Ol' Bill's lunch on that score.

Other than that, it's all good.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Johnny Wallace wrote 1 year 6 days ago

My first rifle was a used old model m77 in 243. I bought it used and has always been a great shooting gun. With just a bushnell 3x9 and 100gn factory winchester I can consistently should nickel sized groups at 100yds on a bench. Prone position also gives similar results. At 300 yds I hit 8x8 inch steel all day long. My current avg groups were bested by a friend who was a much better shot.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from allegnmtn wrote 1 year 4 days ago

I've had a .308 M77 since 1988. It shot MOA right out of the box and still does today. I own a Rem 700 in .270 Win and a Savage 25 in .204 Ruger. The Ruger and Savage are comparable in terms of accuracy off the bench. But for me, the Ruger has the best natural to the shoulder feel and fit of any rifle I've ever shot. I'm not trading mine.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from DakotaMan wrote 48 weeks 1 day ago

You won't see many Rugers 77s at a prairie dog town or at benchrest competitions. They are reliable enough and accurate enough to hit a deer at 100 yards so they have a purpose. Getting a barrel that is accurate is certainly achievable but it costs money (unless you get them from Japan; as in Howa).

The barrels on many top selling brands are approaching sub-MOA but you can still get an outcast unless you go for the Weatherby guarantee on their Vanguards (i.e. Howas). The Savage, Howa 1500, Tikka T3 and Rem 700 brands are turning out pretty good accuracy in relatively low priced models. However, you can still get a dud.

Nowadays, if you buy a top of the line model (e.g. Rem 700 Sendero) you can be pretty well assured of getting an accurate barrel over the counter.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 48 weeks 1 day ago

DakotaMan,

My 1976 Ruger 77 has a barrel furnished to Ruger by Douglas, I believe and is reasonably accurate and shoots one inch groups with some loads. Not a bench rifle to be sure but plenty good enough for the woods and mountains. Your points are well taken.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 48 weeks 1 day ago

The most accurate firearms that I have bought over the counter in the last ten years and there have been several have been my Tikka T3 Lites and my Sako A7. The Weatherby Vanguard shot well but not quite as well as the Tikkas and the Sako.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bellringer wrote 45 weeks 4 days ago

My early production M77 shoots just fine, maybe you guys should find somtthing esle to gripe about

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Reply