# Ruger



## codfish (Mar 22, 2006)

Can anyone tell me what the Ruger M77 Hawkeye is like. I've been looking at them on S.I.R and was thinking of purchasing one in 7mm mag


----------



## varmit b gone (Jan 31, 2008)

I have one in 270, and I love it. If you can, get a Hogue stock, they are way nice. Other than that they are just a M77 MkII with a better trigger and some engraving on the floorplate, but they aren't any/much more than a regular mark 2, they're definataley worth it. Good Luck


----------



## wmmichael20 (Dec 19, 2007)

Ihave a regular mk2 and have had it for 13 years and love it


----------



## Bernie P. (Sep 25, 2008)

I've had an M77 for about 30 years now and it's never let me down.Cant go wrong with Ruger.


----------



## striped1 (Aug 17, 2005)

the savage with the accu-trigger is a much better rifle for your money. Much better trigger and a free floated barrel. The ruger is average at best.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Ruger's new LC6 trigger is nice and crisp now, and the gun is every bit as good as the Savage. I own several of each, and my preference is the Ruger hands down.

Their accuracy is excellent since they took under their own barrel production in the late 90's. And they have the best ring system around, especially for a factory rifle.

Depending on the caliber, controlled round feed can be a major plus, especially in bottlenecked or belted magnum rounds.

Savage is a good to great gun in its own right, accurate, nice triggers, and really not to many complaints as well.

My main downpoint on my savages, all purchases in the last 6 years, is there action is much much rougher than the M77 action. A little work and shooting has cleared up some of this, but just not the same as the mauser style M77.

As far as free floating, it is a fairly simple project, and every savage I have bought has needed work to be truly free floated as the barrels rubbed in several spots.

All in all, you really can't go wrong with either, they are both good guns, with some pro's and con's to each of them.


----------



## varmit b gone (Jan 31, 2008)

I prefer Rugers over Savages also because the stocks on Rugers are way better than the ones on savages. The savage stocks feel very cheap. I also agree on the action situation. Rugers are a tougher, more reliable rifle than savages, hands down.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> Rugers are a tougher, more reliable rifle than savages, hands down.


HUH??? What the heck are you doing with your rifles, hitting them with a hammer? How do you find out if one rifle is "tougher" than another?

Not saying that you are wrong, just curious how one goes about gathering that kind of info. Is my Rem 700 tougher than my Ruger?

I have never had a problem with reliability from any of my bolt rifles. I was interested to hear about the improved Rugers. I may have to give them a try again. Are the improvements only on certain mods?

My first "deer" rifle is my M77 MKII 30-06(purchased in 2003) which won't even come close to out shooting any of my other rifles. (I have to say I have not taken the time on load developement for this as I have on the others) It had a terrible, Savage type stock. I had it glass bedded into a Boyds JRS Classic stock, and had a smith do a trigger job for me, and it is much much better than before, but still no where near the Savages or my Rem. I like the feel of the Ruger, so I may have to spend the extra cash to see if they really come close or out do my Savages. Hard to fork out the extra $$$ to get a rifle that may or may not out perform the better priced ones with better triggers.


----------



## varmit b gone (Jan 31, 2008)

I should of worded that a little better. The way I found out that they are "tougher" is when we carry them in the truck. We never take the time to put a gun rack in, so they get laid with the muzzle on the floorboard and the stock on the seat, and some of the country we cover, they sure get a beating. I'm not saying that a Savage won't stand up to it, but the Rugers just seemed to take it better, but who knows. I have to agree that the older Rugers don't group anywhere near the new Savages, but you don't have to group 1/2in. groups to kill a deer. But I will put up the new Rugers with the LC6 trigger against the Savages any day.


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

After reading some of your posts I take it that Ruger has addressed the trigger issues that they were having? I stopped shooting Ruger because of the terrible triggers they had.


----------



## SDHandgunner (Jun 22, 2004)

I have shot Ruger M77's since back in 1978 or 1979, both the old tang safety versions and the newer MKII versions. The older tang safety versions had a wonderfully adjustable trigger, that if adjusted properly produced a trigger pull second to none (in factory triggers that is). Part of the problem is not everyone knew how to adjust these triggers or understood how they worked.

When the MKII version came out my gun dealer buddy told me they did away with the adjustable trigger so he said he was going to refuse to sell them. Well I replaced the factory trigger on the first MKII I had with a Timney, but in time soon learned how I could tweak the factory trigger to be as smooth, crisp and light as the Timney SAFELY.

As per the accuracy, my experience has been that the older tang safety version could indeed be picky about what you put in them in regards to ammo, but I generally managed to find a good shooting load. The newer MKII versions seem to be less picky in my experience. The last Ruger MK77RFP MKII's I had (one in .223 & one in .243) were absolute tack drivers. Yes I tuned the triggers and free floated the barrels, but I would have done that on any other brand of gun I would have bought also.

I have handled a new Ruger M77R MKII HAWKEYE but have never fired it. A buddy bought it and the trigger was good enough to satisfy him right out of the box. His old .30-06 (a Winchester Model 670) had had a trigger job done to it by yours truely but he said I didn't have to do anything to the new Ruger.

Everyones mileage will vary, and that is the way it should be otherwise if we all shot the same thing we would have nothing to talk about and there would be only one gun company producing rifles. No what fun would that be. As for me I have had Rugers, Remingtons, Winchesters, Howas etc. and I guess for my money I still prefer the Rugers.

Larry


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> I have to agree that the older Rugers don't group anywhere near the new Savages, but you don't have to group 1/2in. groups to kill a deer.


Vamint, I agree completely. Since I have started reloading though it has become more of a test of how well I can make the rifle perform with the ammo I make. My M77 MKII is more than accurate for deer hunting and I would not hesitate to shoot it out to 300yds(which right now is about my max due to lack of experience). I am very interested trying the new trigger in the Ruger though. With an Encore on order I may not be in the market for any new guns, just new barrels.


----------



## varmit b gone (Jan 31, 2008)

laite319 said:


> > I have to agree that the older Rugers don't group anywhere near the new Savages, but you don't have to group 1/2in. groups to kill a deer.
> 
> 
> Vamint, I agree completely. Since I have started reloading though it has become more of a test of how well I can make the rifle perform with the ammo I make. With an Encore on order I may not be in the market for any new guns, just new barrels.


As for the reloading, I also enjoy finding how well I can make my ammo shoot. I have found that with 130gr. Nosler Ballistic Tips, I can group 1/2in., and thats my deer rifle! I too have an encore, and always looking for barrels, so I won't need a new gun anytime soon.


----------

