New Ruger Hawkeye Hunter 30-06

[Stevel]

Ruger just came out with a new model called the M77 Hawkeye Hunter. This model comes in 6.5 Creedmoor, .308, 30-06 and 300 Win Mag. I am reviewing the 30-06. Sorry no pictures though I posted a link at the bottom of the review where you can see it.

This is a new model which is named similarly to the Hawkeye FTW Hunter. This model is stainless with a walnut stock. Like the RugerPrecision Long Range Hunter, this M77 action has the standard scope mounting area drilled and tapped for a 20 moa picatinney rail which was installed tightly. The mounting screws seem to be installed with loctite so I didn't remove them. What drew me to this rifle were the practical features without the tacticool look.

The gun is equipped with a 22" stainless steel barrel with 5R rifling. The beautiful walnut stock has been inletted to allow a free floating barrel. All action mounting screws were tight to the stock. The thread end of the barrel was protected by a matching stainless cap. The 300 Win Mag version comes with a muzzle break, and lower powered rounds with a cap like this one.

Ruger M77s are generally known more for the strength of the Mauser style action rather than buttery smooth operation. This one was worse than average and felt like the bolt was being ground against 300 grit sandpaper. It was so bad I almost did not take it from the gunshop where Gallery of Guns had sent it.

After a little oil on the bolt and shooting a bit things smoothed out to just bad rather than horrendous. Lockup is tight and the single stage LC6 trigger was crisp and did not have noticable over travel. I don't have a trigger gauge but it feels about 4 pounds or a little less. It is certainly an improvement over prior generation M77s which always needed work or an aftermarket trigger installed. At this point I don't plan doing either to this one.

The 30mm Meopta R1 Meostar 3-10x50 scope mounted easily to the 20 minute rail using low rings. The outside objective diameter is close to 60mm's and has 4 or 5mm of barrel clearance.

I had some hand loads lying around which I packed for the range. Initial impressions are very good.

After sighting in, my first 100 yard 3 shot group was .75". Moving to 200 yards I used some 168 Amax's over 56.5 to 57 gr of H4350 (disclaimer: that this load worked safely in my gun, but may not in yours. Check reliable load manuals. Start low and work up. I am not responsible if you try this load and bad things happen).

200 yards [email protected]" / [email protected]" / [email protected]"
250 yards [email protected]" (only shot 3)
300 yards (5 shots) [email protected]" (1 hole)/ [email protected]" /[email protected]" / [email protected]"

Overall I am pleased with the rifle. Once it breaks in and I have time to work up loads it may do better. If it keeps where it is I would remain happy though.

Here is a link to an American Hunter press release with pictures. https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2019/10/1/first-look-ruger-hawkeye-hunter/

 

[Gtscotty]

Plagiarising myself from another board, my thoughts on the Hawkeye Hunter are:

Overall, I like it, and I think Ruger is headed in the right direction. Suppressing hunting rifles is getting more and more common, and flaring the end of the barrel is the right way to go about setting up a reasonably light hunting rifle. You get the benefits of the lighter weight profile while still getting a standard thread size at the end (usually 5/8x24), and a large shoulder for the can to lock up against. A lot of companies are trying to get by with smaller non-standard threads, and crappy small diameter shoulders that cause cans to constantly work their way loose. It's nice to see Ruger join Barrett in doing it right.

A few things I think they missed the mark on:

1) Hardwood on a stainless utility rifle.... why? Just go with a lighter weight, stiff polymer stock as found on the Tikkas and Kimber Hunters and be done with it.

2) The barrels are too long. The only reason to have those nice big threads on the end is for a can... Most folks don't want or need their suppressed hunting rifles to have 22"-24" barrels. The barrel lengths should have been 20" tops for 6.5, .30-06 and .300 WM, 18" tops for the .308 (6.5 would probably be best at this length as well).

3) Weight, these rifles are fairly chunky (like the vast majority of M77s), they'll be even chunkier with 2 lbs of can, rings and scope mounted. ~1 lb lighter should have been the goal.

I really wish Tikka would bring out a T3x, or Kimber would bring out a Hunter with the same barrel profile (although shorter lengths). Unfortunately, Tikka is asleep at the wheel in terms of tracking consumer trends lately, and Kimber doesn't seem to be interested in expanding their Hunter line beyond token stock and paint color changes.

 

[Varminterror]

The new Hunter model is exceptionally close to what I put together for myself as my ideal big game rifle.

Walnut and stainless, increased mag capacity, threaded barrel, although I went with an upgraded trigger, exhibition grade blanks, a gooseneck A3 profile stock to fit my wrist, and used the standard integral ring bases for a sleeker aesthetic.

All thumbs up from me. I’ll probably get one in 300win mag come tax return time.

 

[troy fairweather]

I'd take the base off and the stock, get a synthetic one for $50.

 

[mshootnit]

I think they are sweet and any new life for the old m77 is welcome by me. 5R on a hawkeye, sweet

 

[Stevel]

Fortunately after working the bolt for a while it has smoothed out considerably.

 

[Newtosavage]

I'd take the base off and the stock, get a synthetic one for $50.

Exactly what I was thinking. If they got away from that stupid angled front action screw, that would be an improvement as well. I doubt I'll buy another 77 of any kind so long as they have that feature. But I'd like to own another someday.

 

[Varminterror]

I made a lot of money taking on referrals from other smiths who didn’t want to mess with “that stupid angled action screw.” Never have understood the challenge of it, or why folks get so worked up about it. If I can figure it out, it can’t be that complicated.

I can respect some smiths don’t want to take on the cost of buying/building an action fixture to hold a Ruger action, just for the limited volume of work it would produce, and I can appreciate refusing to D&T or blueprint the surface hardened investment cast receivers since it’s so hard on tooling, and ANY smith who has worked on ruger’s knows how difficult it can be to source parts - but - “that angled action screw” is a really lame excuse I have heard several smiths use to refuse work on them.

 

[jmr40]

Yea, Ruger got it backwards if they want a rugged all around hunting rifle. I have both SS and blue metal on various rifles. SS is a little easier to care for, but I've never seen a rifle fail to work where SS would have made the difference. SS has never caught on with waterfowl hunters and they see far more bad weather than big game hunters.

Wood stocks are a different story. They are becoming standard equipment for waterfowl and when it comes to big game rifles I've seen wood go from perfect to useless in minutes. Plus the natural ebb and flow of temperature, humidity and altitude changes will cause POI shifts with wood stocks that you don't see with synthetic. Wood is pretty, but I don't want it on a rifle that I have to depend on.

That said, I have a huge amount of respect for Ruger 77's. I'm not crazy about the angled action screw, but it isn't a deal killer. They earned a reputation for unpredictable accuracy years ago. But they have certainly improved in that area in the last 10-15 years. It's a shame they discontinued the All Weather Hawkeye. There was a like new used one in 30-06 that sat in a local gun shop all summer priced at $499 with a decent Nikon scope on it. I seriously considered bringing it home every time I was in there. Thankfully someone else finally bought it. I just don't need it. I already have a SS Winchester Classic in 30-06 in a McMillan stock to fill that role.

 

[mshootnit]

most people don't know that the angled screw is to be tightened to 95 in. lbs. (but maybe not the wood stock) video @ 1:35

 

[dh1633pm]

Stevel you sure have one fine rifle. I wouldn't change a thing. I can see why others prefer a synthetic stock. Would be a crime to get a scratch on a fine looking rifle stock. I am glad your enjoying your purchase. I sure do like that Ruger action. Let us know when you get it all dialed in. I bet the bolt will smooth right out after some good use my 77 did.

 

[Varminterror]

most people don't know that the angled screw is to be tightened to 95 in. lbs.

Anything over 56-64in.lb. produces the same net 40-45in.lb. commonly recommended for straight screw actions. The 95in.lb. factory recommendation is 67in.lb. of net downward force.

Many of us do run high torques like 60-65in.lb in straight screw actions. 40’s generally considered minimum, 65 generally max for 90degree screw actions. I typically run 85-90in.lb. on my M77’s, but I have bedded many 77’s to be very happy with 65in.lb. torque without any indication of shifts (shoot a group, whack the barrel with a mallet a few times, shoot again).

The 95 in.lbs. torque spec is in the owner’s manual, so if owners are reading their barrel, and subsequently reading their manual, they’d find it. I’d contend, however, most Ruger M77 owners never have the rifle out of the stock to even be bothered.

 

[Gtscotty]

I'm probably missing something obvious, I've navigated to the Hawkeye Hunter page several times using the direct link, but I can't seem to find it through the drop-down lists starting from Ruger's main mobile page.

I get to the Hawkeye model list and don't see it as an option, what am I missing:

 

[Varminterror]

@Gtscotty - I would guess they aren’t shipping yet. The Hunter isn’t in the model list, but in the News section, you can scroll back a couple weeks to the announcement:

 

[troy fairweather]

Every ruger I've own and owed shot real good. The front screw needs to be tight as heel the middle finger tight and the rear normal. Also check the mag box can move and is not pinched.

 

[Stevel]

I'm probably missing something obvious, I've navigated to the Hawkeye Hunter page several times using the direct link, but I can't seem to find it through the drop-down lists starting from Ruger's main mobile page.

I get to the Hawkeye model list and don't see it as an option, what am I missing:

View attachment 864131

At the moment it is under the "New Models" a few lines below the Hawkeye drop down.

I think they sold the first run pretty quickly. I ordered this one one Oct 1st having accidentally come across it on the press release I posted. Ruger had links on all calibers to "buy now". A couple days later the links were gone. Gallery of Guns is showing a few in stock.

 

[Varminterror]

At the moment it is under the "New Models" a few lines below the Hawkeye drop down.

Sure enough...

 

[Slamfire]

I made a lot of money taking on referrals from other smiths who didn’t want to mess with “that stupid angled action screw.” Never have understood the challenge of it, or why folks get so worked up about it. If I can figure it out, it can’t be that complicated.

I can respect some smiths don’t want to take on the cost of buying/building an action fixture to hold a Ruger action, just for the limited volume of work it would produce, and I can appreciate refusing to D&T or blueprint the surface hardened investment cast receivers since it’s so hard on tooling, and ANY smith who has worked on ruger’s knows how difficult it can be to source parts - but - “that angled action screw” is a really lame excuse I have heard several smiths use to refuse work on them.

I don't know how you bed these Rugers, if you built a fixture you are ahead of me. I used my drill press to drill at an angle.And that took a lot more time to get the angles right than what it takes to drill a Mauser stock.



Drilled a through hole



Then filled it with epoxy for cast a pillar.



Might I say, a very unimpressive pillar.



But pour in enough epoxy and you can bed the action.



I remember when the inprint crowd praised the angled front action screw to high heaven. They said it "pulled" the action down and locked it in place. Or something like that. Based on my experience, the Ruger angled action screw did not cure a terrible factory bedding job. The action slide around in the stock just as much as any other poorly bedded action. And it takes more work to cast the pillar and bed the action than anything other Mauser based action I can remember.

I can understand why others don't want to deal with the thing. Ruger will probably keep this forever but I think it is a terrible idea.

 

[Gtscotty]

At the moment it is under the "New Models" a few lines below the Hawkeye drop down.

Thanks, there it is!
I found this link on another board to the series page, and it looked like it would be a category under products, so I was a bit confused:

https://ruger.com/products/HawkeyeHunter/models.html

BTW, I saw the new PC Carbine model with the chassis while looking through the new products page and got really excited before I realized that what looked like a folding stock... wasn't.

 

[mshootnit]

Anything over 56-64in.lb. produces the same net 40-45in.lb. commonly recommended for straight screw actions. The 95in.lb. factory recommendation is 67in.lb. of net downward force.

Many of us do run high torques like 60-65in.lb in straight screw actions. 40’s generally considered minimum, 65 generally max for 90degree screw actions. I typically run 85-90in.lb. on my M77’s, but I have bedded many 77’s to be very happy with 65in.lb. torque without any indication of shifts (shoot a group, whack the barrel with a mallet a few times, shoot again).

The 95 in.lbs. torque spec is in the owner’s manual, so if owners are reading their barrel, and subsequently reading their manual, they’d find it. I’d contend, however, most Ruger M77 owners never have the rifle out of the stock to even be bothered.

It actually does not yield 67in. lbs. of "downward force"
If you mean net torque, then possibly but in Physics we say that Torque applied to a fastener results in clamping force (F)
The general formula related to clamping force, torque is T = KDF where T is the torque (in.-lb.), K, the nut factor (coefficient of friction) D the nominal screw diameter (in.), and F the clamping force (lbs.) In our case the receiver is the nut. K =0.2 and we apply a net torque of 67 in.-lbs to a Ruger 1/4X28 screw, this would yield a clamping force of 1340 lbs.

 

[Varminterror]

As has been demonstrated many times on this forum, much more than basic 4 function math is lost on the audience, so I simply normalized the components of the 45 degree Ruger action screw.

Yes, 67in.lb. net torque as valued perpendicular to the stock...

 

[LoonWulf]

As has been demonstrated many times on this forum, much more than basic 4 function math is lost on the audience,

Yeah, math is for NEEEERRRRRDSS!!!! Just tight em good!

And I hate you all for posting this, I had so far managed to stay blissfully unaware of these as of yet.

 

[Peakbagger46]

“2) The barrels are too long. The only reason to have those nice big threads on the end is for a can... Most folks don't want or need their suppressed hunting rifles to have 22"-24" barrels. The barrel lengths should have been 20" tops for 6.5, .30-06 and .300 WM, 18" tops for the .308 (6.5 would probably be best at this length as well).”

SLOW down there buddy, and drop the knife (or hawksaw). A lot of guys out there want all the tube we can get for the old ‘06. The longer barrel is the original suppressor and makes it just as fast as a .300WSM with 180g loads.

 

[Gtscotty]

“2) The barrels are too long. The only reason to have those nice big threads on the end is for a can... Most folks don't want or need their suppressed hunting rifles to have 22"-24" barrels. The barrel lengths should have been 20" tops for 6.5, .30-06 and .300 WM, 18" tops for the .308 (6.5 would probably be best at this length as well).”

SLOW down there buddy, and drop the knife (or hawksaw). A lot of guys out there want all the tube we can get for the old ‘06. The longer barrel is the original suppressor and makes it just as fast as a .300WSM with 180g loads.

Negative, I'm sprinting full speed in the opposite direction with a hacksaw in each hand. My 18.5" .30-06 ruined me, I get warm, longer barrel .308 velocities and with the can attached, it's the same length as it would be with a 25" barrel, except it's much, much quieter and has less recoil. With a muzzle velocity of only ~2,690 fps , I was very happy with the wound channels that my 180gr Accubonds left in the elk I shot last year, even after traveling 320 yds to the rendezvous point. My 20" 6.5 did well on a deer and antelope a bit closer in as well. I won't shoot at animals further than 350 to 400 yds anyway, so I'm having a hard time figuring out why I need all that extra barrel dangling out there.

If I do dream up a need for more velocity, something like a 18" .300 WSM that equals a long barrel .30-06, or a 19" .280 ai that equals a long barrel .280 are much more interesting to me (the latter is actually my next planned purchase).

I realize these are dangerous and deviant views, but I can't help it, that sort of setup just works so well for my kind of hunting. If Ruger chopped their barrels down, I'd probably buy a copy, even though they are a bit portly and have a distasteful tree carcass bolted to the action right where one would hope to find a nice synthetic or composite stock.

 

[Newtosavage]

I made a lot of money taking on referrals from other smiths who didn’t want to mess with “that stupid angled action screw.” Never have understood the challenge of it, or why folks get so worked up about it. If I can figure it out, it can’t be that complicated.

I can respect some smiths don’t want to take on the cost of buying/building an action fixture to hold a Ruger action, just for the limited volume of work it would produce, and I can appreciate refusing to D&T or blueprint the surface hardened investment cast receivers since it’s so hard on tooling, and ANY smith who has worked on ruger’s knows how difficult it can be to source parts - but - “that angled action screw” is a really lame excuse I have heard several smiths use to refuse work on them.

Well, I'm not a Smith. It just seems like a point of failure with regard to torquing the action. Failure meaning it has the potential to affect things more than it should. My Howa also has a flat receiver, but uses a standard vertical action screw, and it's very insensitive to action screw torque. Not so with the Ruger. How many threads are there on torquing the Ruger action screw alone?

I just think it's an unnecessary design. If they had gone to the same setup as Howa with this new 77, it would have been a step in the right direction IMO.