Why Ruger M-77 are not the choice for rebarreling or modifications.

[Rustystud]

Ruger Model 77 are great rifles for their intended purposes. One of the most accurate rifles I ever owned was a m-77 in 220 Swift.

I get calls weekly asking for me to rebarrel a Ruger model 77. The callers generally say they can not find any gunsmiths to rebarrel their M-77 Ruger.

I have been told the Ruger model 77s are investment cast then they are finished machined. This technology is lends itself to cracking if a replacement barrel it torqued to tightly. There is a lot of liability to the gunsmith if something were to happen to the action or anybody that could get hurt.

There are a few gunsmiths who do work on Ruger M-77s maybe one will speak up and provide a resouce for those who need rebarreling on their M-77 rugers.

Nat Lambeth

 

[archerross]

My 6.5-284 long range hunter is built on a Ruger M77 Mark II action and wears a Brux barrel. Glen Demaray of Demaray Rifle Works did the work. He did a fantastic job and the trigger is a crisp 2 pounds with no take up or over travel. I would be willing to bet he would rebarrel Ruger M77. Check out his website for contact info http://www.demarayrifleworks.com/DemarayRifleWorks/Home.html.

 

[sdneil]

ER SHAW rebarrelled my Ruger m77 V tang safety about 4 years ago.. I sent them the action and told them what I wanted, all was perfect, 22-250,, I think I will have it set back this winter, have about 1900 rounds thru it now....

 

[JRS]

Ruger Model 77 are great rifles for their intended purposes. One of the most accurate rifles I ever owned was a m-77 in 220 Swift.

I get calls weekly asking for me to rebarrel a Ruger model 77. The callers generally say they can not find any gunsmiths to rebarrel their M-77 Ruger.

I have been told the Ruger model 77s are investment cast then they are finished machined. This technology is lends itself to cracking if a replacement barrel it torqued to tightly. There is a lot of liability to the gunsmith if something were to happen to the action or anybody that could get hurt.

There are a few gunsmiths who do work on Ruger M-77s maybe one will speak up and provide a resouce for those who need rebarreling on their M-77 rugers.

Nat Lambeth

Not quite accurate Nate. Rugers method of investment casting is every bit as strong as a forging/billet, maybe stronger. They have the luxury of adding components to the mix as desired. Forging/billet are limited to the steel produced at the foundry. They could beef it up, but, at a considerable cost. One does not have to worry about the Ruger action breaking. They have been quite successful with this. I had a Ruger in 600 Nitro express built by Gary Reeder. He had no problem with the action, other than being hard on tooling.
Something else I will add: Pac-Nor and McGowan, both well known barrel manufactures, will re barrel the Ruger 77 without hesitation.

 

[kendog]

Rugers aren't weak. Anything but. They are just more crooked than the others. I have no problem re-barreling them.

 

[Rustystud]

I did not say they were weak. I said they may crack if over tightened.
Please don't misquote me.
Nat Lambeth

 

[huffmanite]

Guess I'm lucky. Gent that is a retired machinist thats done gunsmithing as a hobby/sideline for over 40 yrs, rebarreled a 77 tang safety for me a couple of years ago. Can remember asking him if he'd have any problem rebarreling a 77......"nope", he answered, "done a few of them in the past and never had a problem doing one." The Ruger he rebarreled is my most accurate rifle.

 

[JRS]

Curiosity got the best of me on this one Nat. I was having the brain in my car re flashed again at Truspeed Racing. They build, modify, maintain and race Porsches, and had some time to sit down with one of the resident experts there while they had my car on the dyno and talk about forging vs investment casting. The conversation would cover many pages, so here is the short version of it. He knows nothing about Ruger as a company, but states modern castings are every bit as strong as a forging with some being stronger. Good examples are alloy rims, cast steel cranks, pistons and connecting rods in most factory unmodified engines. For example, the lug nuts tightened against an alloy rim at 150 lbs ft of torque are under a great deal of stress, and if one continued to tighten the lug nuts, the stud would be the item to fail, not the wheel. I would think that if enough torque were placed on the threads of an action made from bar stock, something would have to fail there also.

 

[kendog]

I did not say they were weak. I said they may crack if over tightened.
Please don't misquote me.
Nat Lambeth

Embrittlement is a form of weakness.

Anything could crack if "over tightened".

Please don't post blowing smoke up everyone's backside.

 

[BigDMT]

Never heard of a gunsmith not willing to rebarrel a ruger m77???
I have a custom 358 norma built on the tang m77 with a lilja barrel. My personal smith is always willing to work with rugers but my norma was built by a fella who specializes in working with the m77. His name is Dennis Olson and he lives in Plains, Montana. Business is called Olson Gunsmithing. He does the best work I've seen when it comes to modifying the m77s. If you do a Google search for him you'll find his number very easily.

 

[TRECustom]

Nat, castings can be of very high quality, but they have a sort of amorphous grain structure, not the flowing grain structure of a forging. I believe that they can be made as strong (ultimate tensile strength) as a forging, but in order to do so, would sacrifice ductility. I'm a little rusty on my metallurgy, but I would expect that they would also have to have a higher yield strength, much closer to their ultimate tensile strength, which would have the effect of making them more prone to brittle (catastrophic) failure if their yield strength was finally exceeded.

As I recall, back in the mid to late 60's, when Winchester was trying to figure out how to build cheaper rifles, they also used cast M-70 receivers for a few yrs, then went back to forged receivers. All pre '64 model 70 receivers were forged, but the early push-feed receivers were cast. When they abandoned cast receivers, they started identifying the new forged receivers with a G prefix in the serial No. I had a Mod 70 Target (post '64) that was push feed with no prefix. I also had a later (1972) push-feed Mod 70 Target that did have the G prefix. outwardly the receivers were indistiguishable from each other.

As for cracking a receiver, I did inspect a 1917 Eddystone a couple of years ago that had an axial brittle fracture the full length of the receiver ring. I know they're forged, and have a square-form thread, but I believe that incorrect heat treating and then over-tightening the barrel caused the crack.

I have no really serious problem with Ruger 77's except the flat sides make you turn a lot of good material off the shank of a 1.250" diameter barrel so that the barrel shoulder won't hang out past the side of the receiver. Consequently they don't have as much material surrounding the barrel tenon as round or rounded receiver rings do. I don't know why they do it, but I do know that a massive round receiver ring surrounding the barrel tenon gives me more confidence than the thin flat side of a Ruger 77 receiver........No science, just seems logical........

I rebarrelled a Ruger 77 tang safety in 7-08 several years ago for a good friend, but am in no hurry to do another one.

Bottom line finally. For me it seems much more likely that overtightening a v-form thread could crack a thin-sided cast Ruger 77 receiver than a thick round, forged Weatherby, Remington, or Mauser.

Like I said, no science, just the way I see it.

Good thread, makes you think.

Tom

 

[Eddie Harren]

Tom, I had a customer who inadvertently put a 308 in a Ruger 25-06 and let her fly. Bolt welded shut. extractor retaining ring blew halfway out, bolt stop was half open, bottom metal vacated the Hogue stock. Shilen barrel and Ruger action were undamaged. I trust the Ruger cast actions.

 

[JRS]

There are many a PH in Africa and other parts of the world who have a great deal of trust in them also

 

[TRECustom]

Doc, nothing like a catastrophy to test something. That experience reinforces my belief that Ruger is not going to put anything out that isn't safe. It's just my personal preference for thicker receiver rings and forged receivers.

A testimony to a different Ruger product. Years ago, a friend who was a professional gunsmith made a dumb mistake and demolished a new Ruger .30 carbine single action revolver, I think a Blackhawk. It folded the loading gate back, bulged the frame, locked the cylinder, broke the grips, and showered his upper body, neck and face with shrapnel, unburned powder, and caused bruises and 1st degree burns to his hands and forearms. His glasses saved his eyes, but he looked like he had been sacking wildcats. He had failed to look down the bore of the pistol when it was brought in, because the owner couldn't find bullet holes anywhere on the target after firing a full cylinder. My friend loaded another 6 rounds and fired into the sandpit in the back of his shop. He was not familiar with the .30 carbine in a revolver, and thought the sound and fury were a little over the top, but when he fired the 2nd round, all hell broke loose. When that round fired, it set off the remaining 4 rounds in the cylinder, spewing brass, lead, copper jacketing, burning powder etc from all around the frame and both ends of the cylinder. He later sectioned the barrel lengthwise from muzzle to frame, and found 8 bullets fused together in the bore. Undoubtedly the first round fired was a squib and set up the near disaster. To his credit, he made no attempt to keep it a secret, thus warning a lot of people of the consequences of skipping the simple step of just looking down the bore. Strangely, my respect for him went up to a new level. That ruined revolver was in one of his glass-topped counters until he retired and closed his shop. I consider it a testimonial to Ruger because the thing didn't become a grenade. The only pieces that came off were the ejector rod and shroud, and they went into the sandpit.

JRS, I didn't know that. PH's probably trust the controlled-round feed, and don't worry about receiver wall thickness or cast vs. forged.

Good shooting, Tom

 

[LESLEY]

When was the last time you seen a Ruger win a major match. I am talking about a Ruger action built gun. There is a reason you dont see shooters using them at matches like the Nationals. The major palma matches or any match that matters. Yes they make good hunting rifles and actions for hunting rifles. But lets face it when Savage has a comp rifle and a team it means Ruger is behind

 

[BigDMT]

When was the last time you seen a Ruger win a major match. I am talking about a Ruger action built gun. There is a reason you dont see shooters using them at matches like the Nationals. The major palma matches or any match that matters. Yes they make good hunting rifles and actions for hunting rifles. But lets face it when Savage has a comp rifle and a team it means Ruger is behind

Did I miss something here? When did anyone mention a ruger m77 action being used for competition???

Ruger has never intended for their rifles to be used competitively in shooting matches. They have always only tried to appeal to hunters. They build some of the toughest and most reliable actions in the industry that will save your life in the event of catastrophic case failures as mentioned before and they will give you more than enough accuracy to harvest game at any ethical shooting distance a caliber is capable of. And they have accomplished that goal with high flying colors imo.

I'm sure if ruger wanted to produce an action that appealed to the budget minded competitive shooter like savage did with their benchrest action, I have no doubt ruger would be able to produce a very fine innovative action indeed. But as of now, that obviously is not their goal.

 

[LESLEY]

When was the last time you seen a Ruger win a major match. I am talking about a Ruger action built gun. There is a reason you dont see shooters using them at matches like the Nationals. The major palma matches or any match that matters. Yes they make good hunting rifles and actions for hunting rifles. But lets face it when Savage has a comp rifle and a team it means Ruger is behind

Did I miss something here? When did anyone mention a ruger m77 action being used for competition???

Ruger has never intended for their rifles to be used competitively in shooting matches. They have always only tried to appeal to hunters. They build some of the toughest and most reliable actions in the industry that will save your life in the event of catastrophic case failures as mentioned before and they will give you more than enough accuracy to harvest game at any ethical shooting distance a caliber is capable of. And they have accomplished that goal with high flying colors imo.

I'm sure if ruger wanted to produce an action that appealed to the budget minded competitive shooter like savage did with their benchrest action, I have no doubt ruger would be able to produce a very fine innovative action indeed. But as of now, that obviously is not their goal.

Ok let me see if i get this right Savage can build a more accurate gun for less money than a Ruger. Because Ruger does not want to sell to shooters that want accurate rifles they dont produce them. Then you say Ruger COULD BUILD ACCURATE RIFLES IF THEY WANTED TO. Why dont they want to. Incase your wondering i dont own a Savage rifle. Heck everyone knows Ruger builds the least accurate rifles on the US. market next to the breakover single shots

 

[kendog]

When was the last time you seen a Ruger win a major match. I am talking about a Ruger action built gun. There is a reason you dont see shooters using them at matches like the Nationals. The major palma matches or any match that matters. ....Did I miss something here? When did anyone mention a ruger m77 action being used for competition???

Ruger has never intended for their rifles to be used competitively in shooting matches. ...

Wellll.... Ruger did make a special action, and rifle, and donated them to the Palma Team a few seasons back. It was specially made with a much longer ring and flat bottom without the angled screw. As I heard it, they tried them and went back to the Swings and Paramounts for the competition because the Ruger just didnt have it.
No doubt about it, they are well engineered for what they do, and they are built like a brick sh*thouse, but for many reasons you dont find them on the firing line, much less the winners circle. Never have seen one broken, either.

 

[JRS]

When was the last time you seen a Ruger win a major match. I am talking about a Ruger action built gun. There is a reason you dont see shooters using them at matches like the Nationals. The major palma matches or any match that matters. Yes they make good hunting rifles and actions for hunting rifles. But lets face it when Savage has a comp rifle and a team it means Ruger is behind

Did I miss something here? When did anyone mention a ruger m77 action being used for competition???

Ruger has never intended for their rifles to be used competitively in shooting matches. They have always only tried to appeal to hunters. They build some of the toughest and most reliable actions in the industry that will save your life in the event of catastrophic case failures as mentioned before and they will give you more than enough accuracy to harvest game at any ethical shooting distance a caliber is capable of. And they have accomplished that goal with high flying colors imo.

I'm sure if ruger wanted to produce an action that appealed to the budget minded competitive shooter like savage did with their benchrest action, I have no doubt ruger would be able to produce a very fine innovative action indeed. But as of now, that obviously is not their goal.

Ok let me see if i get this right Savage can build a more accurate gun for less money than a Ruger. Because Ruger does not want to sell to shooters that want accurate rifles they dont produce them. Then you say Ruger COULD BUILD ACCURATE RIFLES IF THEY WANTED TO. Why dont they want to. Incase your wondering i dont own a Savage rifle. Heck everyone knows Ruger builds the least accurate rifles on the US. market next to the breakover single shots

Ruger isn't into bench rest accuracy guns. Never has been, probably never will be. I would venture to say, with the additional work needed to make the Savage an accuracy acceptable rifle, Ruger could do the same. Ruger does quite well building very strong, reliable guns designed for hunting. When was the last time you heard of a PH in South Africa using a Savage? Or Remington? You need to keep things in perspective. FYI, a large number of the parts used during the manufacture of Savage firearms are made in China ;D :-[

 

[BigDMT]

When was the last time you seen a Ruger win a major match. I am talking about a Ruger action built gun. There is a reason you dont see shooters using them at matches like the Nationals. The major palma matches or any match that matters. Yes they make good hunting rifles and actions for hunting rifles. But lets face it when Savage has a comp rifle and a team it means Ruger is behind

Did I miss something here? When did anyone mention a ruger m77 action being used for competition???

Ruger has never intended for their rifles to be used competitively in shooting matches. They have always only tried to appeal to hunters. They build some of the toughest and most reliable actions in the industry that will save your life in the event of catastrophic case failures as mentioned before and they will give you more than enough accuracy to harvest game at any ethical shooting distance a caliber is capable of. And they have accomplished that goal with high flying colors imo.

I'm sure if ruger wanted to produce an action that appealed to the budget minded competitive shooter like savage did with their benchrest action, I have no doubt ruger would be able to produce a very fine innovative action indeed. But as of now, that obviously is not their goal.

Ok let me see if i get this right Savage can build a more accurate gun for less money than a Ruger. Because Ruger does not want to sell to shooters that want accurate rifles they dont produce them. Then you say Ruger COULD BUILD ACCURATE RIFLES IF THEY WANTED TO. Why dont they want to. Incase your wondering i dont own a Savage rifle. Heck everyone knows Ruger builds the least accurate rifles on the US. market next to the breakover single shots

Oh Ruger builds accurate rifles alright. To say they don't clearly means you do not have any experience with them. They are just built for hunting purposes. Plain and simple.

Below are pictures of my Ruger M77 Tang Safety .358 Norma and the groups it shoots using 225gr Nosler Partitions and Hodgdon BLC-2 powder. It ALWAYS shoots this accurate. I even get under 1.5" Five shot groups at 300 yards with it. Of course it has a Lilja barrel which helps, but everything else on the action, other than a stiffer spring for faster lock time, is straight from the factory. The trigger is even factory and breaks cleanly at about 1 1/2 lb. with no creep or over-travel at all. Wonderful trigger.

These are photos of my COMPLETELY factory Ruger M77 Tang Safety rifle chambered in 6mm Remington with the factory 24" heavy varmint barrel and the accuracy I get from this tack driver. This accuracy is from a complete factory rifle that is over 34 years old!!! Only modifications that were not done at the factory was bedding the action and free floating the barrel. Which should be done with all rifles if you want good accuracy, so I don't count that as much of a modification. Unbelievable for a factory rifle if you ask me

Now I'm not saying Ruger is the BEST action for consistent accuracy, but I wouldn't hesitate to say they are right up there with the best of the best if you want to build an accurate rifle. There are so many factors involved when building an accurate rifle and producing quality ammo from the bench that any action can be great or a dudd. I personally have never failed at getting any action to shoot with excellent accuracy simply because I found a method of handloading, stock work, and shooting techniques that work well for me and I've honed them to the point where I have a lot of success when trying to make an accurate rifle.

I also own 3 custom Savage action based rifles (one short action, one long action, and one BR action) and a Rem 700 custom as well. All are as accurate as my custom Ruger and all factory Ruger. But as you can see, my Ruger rifles are no slouches when it comes to accuracy and provide me with way more than enough accuracy to get the job done in the field when hunting. All rifles based on those three factory actions mentioned above can be extremely accurate when built right and with careful attention to detail when handloading.

I will admit that I am not a fan of the late MKII M77's. Horrible triggers and magazine release leaves you bloody with magnum rifles, but accurate nonetheless. I'll always love and shoot Ruger M77's because they have never failed me in any way when the shot had to count