# New Ruger



## pallis (Jul 31, 2007)

Does anyone here have any experience with the M77 Rugers? I just ordered a new Hawkeye All-weather model in 300 WM. Two of my sons and I drew elk permits in a good unit. Neither one of them has a rifle that is suitable for the task. One can use my old 35 Whelen, and I was going to use a Remington SPS stainless in 300 WSM, but now I'm thinking I should use the Ruger, if it shoots good. The M77 is one of the few bolt rifles I don't have any experience with, never even held one, but after reading some comments on the new Hawkeyes, I decided it is time to give one a try. What do you guys think?


----------



## ShoerFast (Jul 31, 2007)

pallis said:


> Does anyone here have any experience with the M77 Rugers? I just ordered a new Hawkeye All-weather model in 300 WM. Two of my sons and I drew elk permits in a good unit. Neither one of them has a rifle that is suitable for the task. One can use my old 35 Whelen, and I was going to use a Remington SPS stainless in 300 WSM, but now I'm thinking I should use the Ruger, if it shoots good. The M77 is one of the few bolt rifles I don't have any experience with, never even held one, but after reading some comments on the new Hawkeyes, I decided it is time to give one a try. What do you guys think?




The M77 will be a tack driver, or up for sale, smooth action, well built, but questionable relibility down range. Congrats on the rifle and the hunt, memories are what fuel us! 

The 300 WSM is a good selection for elk, but knowing the rilfe is priceless.


----------



## pallis (Jul 31, 2007)

ShoerFast said:


> The M77 will be a tack driver, or up for sale...


 Good one!

The Remington SPS stainless is a sweet rifle. I don't have much time in on working up loads for the 300 WSM, but have a couple that group up under an inch. It doesn't kick bad, so I think it'll be better for one of my sons. He's a little recoil shy.


----------



## ShoerFast (Jul 31, 2007)

The 300 WSM would be a fun load to work up!

Running a quick program on the 165 GR and the 180 GR (Nosler partitions) 

The 165 GR holds only slight edge over the 180 GR on trajectory, the 180 GR the 165 GR being a solid 400Y , and the 180 GR being a 450 elk-enegery load (both crossing at 1775 at 400 and 450 yards respectfully) 

Both are about 24" low at there optimual range,[give or take],,,, one body width to the bread basket is easy to rember. 


There both so close that recoil may deside the 165 over the 180,,,,,, I really think that a worked - max load, the 165 would smoke the 180 GR , except for the part, on paper, the 150 GR holds a constant with the 150 GR,,,,,that might suggest some sort of mid - 165 / 180 might be optiumim?


----------



## Wood Hick (Aug 1, 2007)

I own one M77, and love it. I bought it years ago for my first Western elk hunt because it was $150 bucks cheaper than a Remington or Winchester at the time. Its very first shot at game killed a nice 5 x 5 bull, and its been killing ever since. It takes heavily from the 98 mauser in design, but with modern improvements. Some of the older ones had lousy barells, but that was years ago, today they are very good.


----------



## pallis (Aug 1, 2007)

Wood Hick said:


> Some of the older ones had lousy barells, but that was years ago, today they are very good.



One of the reasons I stayed away from the M77 was the stories I heard about the barrels, how they were hit or miss. It sounds like you got one that hits. I guess they are all pretty good now that Ruger is making their own.


----------



## 361kid (Aug 2, 2007)

I have one in the left hand version in .300 win. It's a sweet shooter...it shoots better than me.


----------



## hornett22 (Aug 12, 2007)

*every one i have had or have has been awesome.*



pallis said:


> One of the reasons I stayed away from the M77 was the stories I heard about the barrels, how they were hit or miss. It sounds like you got one that hits. I guess they are all pretty good now that Ruger is making their own.



i like remingtons too but have heard of recent trigger isues.


----------



## pallis (Aug 16, 2007)

hornett22 said:


> i like remingtons too but have heard of recent trigger isues.



I've adjusted the trigger on the SPS down to where it is okay. I would guess it to be at about 31/5 or 4 pounds. It isn't a great trigger, but I've had worse. The biggest complaint about the Remingtons that I've heard is that they don't feed the WSM cases correctly. I must have lucked out with mine. It is very smooth feeding, surprisingly so. 

My Ruger came in, and it turned out to be the wrong caliber, 7mm Magnum instead of the 300. They ordered another that should be in around Friday. If so, I'll try to get it sighted in, and see how it wants to shoot. I worked up some new loads for the SPS and the 35 Whelen, so I can get a lot of paper punching in.


----------



## pbtree (Sep 14, 2007)

M77 is a fine piece - I have put quite a bit of venison on my table with it that is for sure!


----------



## Timberhauler (Sep 14, 2007)

I owned a M77,mine was a 270 winchester.It was plenty accurate.There was a kid at the range the other day with a M77 stainless 300 Win.Mag.He was making really good 100 yard groups,but I never saw him shoot beyond that.


----------



## rahtreelimbs (Sep 14, 2007)

Why not just go for the full length mag???

The WSM seems to be a waste of time............to me anyway!!!


----------



## Timberhauler (Sep 14, 2007)

rahtreelimbs said:


> Why not just go for the full length mag???
> 
> The WSM seems to be a waste of time............to me anyway!!!



I don't understand this short magnum craze all of a sudden,or the need for trying to develop something better than the mighty 300 and 338 Win.Mags.


----------



## rahtreelimbs (Sep 14, 2007)

rahtreelimbs said:


> Why not just go for the full length mag???
> 
> The WSM seems to be a waste of time............to me anyway!!!





Timberhauler said:


> I don't understand this short magnum craze all of a sudden,or the need for trying to develop something better than the mighty 300 and 338 Win.Mags.





Ballistically they are no better. Pretty much just all marketing. When you think about the fact that the .270 Win came out in 1925 there really isn't much improvement to be made. 


The short action mags have no belt so they headspace off of the shouldedr which is better, But any savvy handloader can make a belted case headspace off of the shoulder anyway!!!


The short action rifles may weigh a little less but IMO not enough to make a difference. Now bullet design is where a lot of improvements have been made!!!


----------



## Timberhauler (Sep 14, 2007)

rahtreelimbs said:


> Ballistically they are no better. Pretty much just all marketing. When you think about the fact that the .270 Win came out in 1925 there really isn't much improvement to be made. The short action rifles may weigh a little less but IMO not enough to make a difference. Now bullet design is where a lot of improvements have been made!!!



The dealer I do business with tells me that everyone likes the shorter action...I don't get it.In most real hunting situations,you're gonna be damm lucky to get off a second shot no matter what you're packin' unless it's full auto.


----------



## rahtreelimbs (Sep 14, 2007)

Timberhauler said:


> The dealer I do business with tells me that everyone likes the shorter action...I don't get it.In most real hunting situations,you're gonna be damm lucky to get off a second shot no matter what you're packin' unless it's full auto.




That is why one one rifles is a Ruger No. 1. I like the challenge of one shot!!!


To add to this thread..........the No.1 that I have was made in 2001 and the M77 compact (in .308 Win) was made in 2006.........both Rifles shoot 3/4" 3 shot groups!!!


----------



## Timberhauler (Sep 14, 2007)

As of the end of the 06 season,I've killed a total of 63 whitetails over the years I've been hunting,several wild hogs and two black bears.Each only took one shot...I've had my share of misses as well,and even with a semi-auto I didn't have time for a second shot.


----------



## rahtreelimbs (Sep 14, 2007)

Short actions are more for their reduced weight than anything else!!!


----------



## Timberhauler (Sep 14, 2007)

rahtreelimbs said:


> Short actions are more for their reduced weight than anything else!!!



Reduced weight=more recoil...A friend of mine recently bought a .325 short mag in a Browning A-bolt titanium..It kicks so hard he can't even sight his own rifle in.It feels like twice the recoil of my M700 .338 win.mag...If it isn't fun to shoot I ain't gonna have it.


----------



## monkeywood (Sep 22, 2007)

*Short magnums, super short magnums, and ultras*

The shorties are pretty much a gimmick. With few exceptions they will not do anything that their long action fathers can't do. All cal .30 bullets are what they are nothing fancy. Give or take there is about 14 different "common" cal .30 rounds, and hundreds of bullets. The second oldest of that group (over 100yrs) is still one of the most popular rounds ever. It can do everything, and will kill anything on this continent. The .338 family is in the same boat with an even smaller difference in performance between them. If you fancy new rifle just make sure that the ammo is not going to be a collectors item in a few years. 

Speaking to weight, how much could one inch of receiver and bolt weigh. Weight was never a huge concern for me. A lot of time the weight savings is in the barrel. The barrel is the heart of the rifle. You don't need a barrel that looks like a baseball bat, but magnums with pencil barrels aren't the answer. 

Because of the steep shoulder angle 35 deg on the short mags and ultras the lead (leed) and the first bit of the bore will erode much faster than a standard mag (200 round life VS 1000 round.) Everything will cost more for them because they are new. (rounds, barrels, cases, ect...) 

I'm a bit old fashioned when it comes to firearms. If its newer than 40yrs old or if the military never used it I probably don't need one.


----------



## Timberhauler (Sep 23, 2007)

monkeywood said:


> Speaking to weight, how much could one inch of receiver and bolt weigh. Weight was never a huge concern for me. A lot of time the weight savings is in the barrel. The barrel is the heart of the rifle. You don't need a barrel that looks like a baseball bat, but magnums with pencil barrels aren't the answer.
> 
> I'm a bit old fashioned when it comes to firearms. If its newer than 40yrs old or if the military never used it I probably don't need one.



They put these new short magnum cases in these short action rifles with 20 inch barrels,that doesn't make much sense to me either...A short barrel is not a friend of long range accuracy,to mention again,the recoil will knock the fillings out of your back teeth..Where's the joy in that?

I seriously get a kick watching some of these guys at the range who shoot these new short mags in lightweight rifles,and they can't even make good shots from a lead sled without flinching,then they claim they bought the rifle for making long range shots.Without a good shot the added power is useless.They also claim they need these lightweight rifles for weight savings,yet 90% of them are sitting in a stand or a blind all day long.For the guys who track and stalk,then I can understand.


----------



## pbtree (Sep 23, 2007)

Timberhauler said:


> ... I seriously get a kick watching some of these guys...



Don't you mean they get the kick? :hmm3grin2orange: 

On a serious note... I agree with Timber... I like my older bolts better than this new fangled stuff. 30.06 has worked fine for me on all the North American game I have gone after, and the intimidation factor is low...


----------



## Timberhauler (Sep 23, 2007)

pbtree said:


> Don't you mean they get the kick? :hmm3grin2orange:
> 
> On a serious note... I agree with Timber... I like my older bolts better than this new fangled stuff. 30.06 has worked fine for me on all the North American game I have gone after, and the intimidation factor is low...



Both of my 06's are exceptionally accurate,and I spend a good bit of time at the range practicing all year.I try to go at least twice a month during the off season,and once a week during hunting season.Inside 100 yards,I have no worries so I practice shooting up to 300 yards from the same positions I would be shooting from while hunting.

I've made several kill shots in between 200 and 250 yards,and one that was 325.I aim for the neck,just below the cheekbone which makes for either a clean kill or a clean miss.I hate the thought of wounding an animal.I hunt alot in the lower part of the state which is beanfields and corn fields as far as the eye can see,and I don't see the need for anything more than a 300 win mag except for a sales pitch.I rarely ever use my 300 mag anymore due to a shoulder injury late last year,and the more I experiment with my 06' the less I think I need it anyway. If I am ever knowingly going to a place where a 4 or 500 yard shot might be in order,then I'll pack it.


----------

