Ruger Hawkeye vs M77

[someguy2800]

I was just curious if anyone here has a newer ruger Hawkeye and what you think of it. I have been really soured on the old Mk77 ruger rifles because to be perfectly honest all of them I've ever been around were terrible shooters. I've had three family members that have or had them. My brother in law has one in 270 that shoots somewhere around 2-3 moa, my dad had one in 22 hornet that was about the same and my brother had one in 223 that was utterly hopeless with any ammo. Honestly nobody I've ever talked to with one had much any better to say about the M77 for accuracy.

I was just wondering with the new American rifles being so accurate which I have seen for myself, I wonder if ruger redid there whole barrel program and are using the same barrels for the Hawkeye's now. I've been planning for a new Winchester model 70 but was just thinking if ruger has managed to figure out how to make the hawkeye a decent shooter I might go that route instead.

 

[mshootnit]

Well, my old Ruger Stainless M77 mark II , zytel shoots literally almost everything MOA or better, this after floating trigger work and bedding. In factory form it was 1.25-1.5 moa.
My newer Hawkeye stainless synthetic 243 became an MOA shooter after, again bedding and some floating.
I have an old M77 Ruger tang safety 6mm made in 1987-88 that will shoot MOA with plain jane corelokt 100gr. but nothing else so far.

My dad said some Rugers need to be shot 200-250 rounds before they really shoot sweet.
Of course the target grey, laminate stock M77 25-06 was an MOA or better shooter too.

My dad has at least three more older Ruger M77 that are all lights out accurate as well. Two are M77V 6mm, one is a Mark II 220 swift made circa 2000

 

[mshootnit]

Adding that my 243 shot moa with handloads, not sure if it could do that with factory. Possibly.
My gut feeling is that an older Mark II might have the best barrel, or an early M77 V. (of course the heavy target grey laminate guns are bound to be good too)
The Mark II will usually need floating, trigger work, and bedding but the barrels are sweet. However, my dad gave me his mark II sporter 220 swift to bed. I looked it over and gave it right back. It was perfectly inlet and very well fit. The best Ruger I have seen. He said it is scary accurate too.

 

[LoonWulf]

The .300 hawkeye i had would stack bullets. I really liked that gun but a buddy liked it more. Ive only handled one older m77 that was nearly that accurate. My experience with the old ones were that they were solid but not spectacular.

 

[mshootnit]

I would be surprised if the hawkeye barrels have anything to do with the American barrels.

 

[LoonWulf]

I remember reading a while back that ruger used to outsource barrel production, which was part of and possibly most of the reason older rugers were so inconsistent.

If thats true then there maybe something to the OP.
Im pretty sure rugers been making there own tubes for a while now, and consistency has improved.

 

[C-grunt]

Like LoonWulf said, I remember reading that Ruger used to outsource their barrel for the M77. At some point Ruger brought barrel production back in house and the accuracy issues went away. What the time frames are for which barrels I couldn't tell you though.

 

[C-grunt]

That being said I have a friend with a newer Ruger stainless rifle, not an American but not sure if its a M77 or Hawkeye, in 270 that is definitely a sub MOA rifle with good ammunition.

 

[dranrab]

I have owned a number of pre Hawkeye Rugers. I have never had a dud, nor have I ever had a ringer. They were acceptably accurate for their given purpose. I have two Hawkeyes now. I haven't done a lot of load development with them, but one is going to be very accurate and the other is going to be good (it's an ultralight.) The trigger on Hawkeyes is much better. I read a lot about Hawkeyes, and most of what I read is favorable. If someone told me I had to walk into my local store and buy what I felt like would be the most accurate standard rifle in the store, I wouldn't buy a Ruger. I'd probably buy a Savage. But for a hunting gun, there's more to it than pinpoint accuracy. It's fun to post pics of those .5" groups on the forums, but in reality that level of accuracy is rarely ever needed in a hunting rifle. Ruger builds an ox strong gun right here in the USA. Most will get under MOA with the right ammo/load. What more do you need?

 

[dieselchief]

I hate a gun that is so sensitive to a particular load that it wont shoot anything else. my ruger American predator in 243 shoots anything really decent. I still cant get a handle on why all the previous hawkeyes and 77s with all the wood and steel are not even close. the latest hawkeye was a 257> terrible. just saying. dc

 

[hdbiker]

I bought a as new but used Ruger 77MK11 that left the factory in 1991, in .308 Win. I tried 5 different bullets and three different powders and could barely hold a 2 1/2 group.Called Ruger and after a conversation they agree to take the rifle back for inspection. A week or so later they called and said they were going to re barrel it. I haven't had a lot of time to work with it yet, but all my old .308 loads are holding 1 1/2 groups or better. NO CHARGE !!!!!!!. I also heard that back then Ruger was farming out their barrels. hdbiker

 

[Corn-Picker]

I had one of the 90s Ruger M77 Mark IIs (boat paddle stock), which was the time period that Ruger earned their reputation for poor accuracy. It was chambered in 7mm mag, and I was lucky to hit a grapefruit at 100 yards -- worst shooting rifle I ever owned by a fair margin.

I prefer CRF actions and a safety that pulls/blocks the firing pin, so I may be willing to give Ruger another shot (pun intended), The M70 meets those criteria as well, but they don't offer anything equivalent to the guide gun in 375 Ruger (short LOP plus short barrel), so if I give Ruger another chance it'll be with that combo.

 

[GooseGestapo]

I've had a number of Ruger firearms. Particularly M77's.

Most weren't "stinkers", nor were they "ringers".

I've had two M7722Hornets. First was circa 1985 production. It was a STINKER. Badly cut chamber. Over size and out of round.
Second, has excessive slop in the bolt halves. Lots of work later, it shoots good, afraid to send it back, not likely that Ruger will fix it...

Had a M77MkII in .257Roberts. I really wanted to like that Rifle. However, nothing I tried improved accuracy beyond 2moa. It became worth more than I had in it, so it "went down the road".

Ditto a .357mag. It shot well enough with a jacketed 158gr, but "sprayed" cast loads. Became worth more to someone else...

I won a M77MkII "Target" model in .308 at the 1996 NPSC. With either Federal Premium match 168gr factory or hand loaded w/IMR4064 would shoot 4" groups at 100yds. Tried 3 scopes, two sets of rings... no joy. Sold it. New owner rebarreled it. (Gunsmith). Shilen blank. Shot 1-hole groups...

Only Rugers I still have are the aforementioned .22Hornet, my older brothers first year production pre MkI .22Auto (RSA-6), and a first run M77MkII African in .375Ruger, but it cost me $385 to get Ruger to rebarrel it. But it's a tack driver now...

After 50rds of "fire lapping" loads, my Single-7, shoots OK, but nothing to rave about. A RedHawk .45LC, tack-driver, but I don't care for crew-served handguns.
Many other "Lukewarm" to many to mention.

Not likely to ever own an American. Just don't need another bolt-action "deer rifle".

 

[VoodooMountain]

I've got 3 of the newer ruger 77's of which 2 I have actually shot a bit. Both of them seem to be quite accurate. They are actually my favorite rifles.

I have no experience on the older models.

 

[Big7]

The .300 hawkeye i had would stack bullets. I really liked that gun but a buddy liked it more. Ive only handled one older m77 that was nearly that accurate. My experience with the old ones were that they were solid but not spectacular.

Older tang safety 77's were pretty much Mauser safety's. The newer were more "scope friendly".

77's and all Ruger's have the BEST scope mounts in the industry. Even considering the "fancy stuff".

I have NO idea where the "Ruger is not accurate" camp comes from but I can SHOW you the
5 that I have will shoot where you shoot.

I have 5 recorded shots at 1000 yards with mine.

Fort Benning, Ga.. Cold bore, first shot was on the plate.
rest hit the paper..

The Hawkeye is an excellent rifle. I just don't need one,
if I did, I would buy one in a flash.

 

[Corn-Picker]

I have NO idea where the "Ruger is not accurate" camp comes from...

As several in this thread have attested, Ruger produced some horribly inaccurate firearms in the mid 80s through mid 90s, including my 7mm mag that struggled to hold 3.5 MOA at 100 yards. Why is it hard to understand where we are coming from?

How many of your five shooters are stock models from 1985-1995?

 

[DDDWho]

Years ago, perhaps 35 I had a M77 with tang safety in 06. Back in those days I would take things apart just to see the innards and how they worked. I took the tang safety apart and was amazed at the flimsiness of it. It was spring operated and the spring resembled a safety pin. Very unsubstantial looking.
I sold that gun for reasons unknown or remembered.
A couple of years ago I bought a 77 Hawkeye in .280 Rem. I like the Mauser type safety on it much better than the tang on the old one. I have a Nikon scope on it and hit quarter sized bullseyes with it consistently at 100 yards. The trigger is much better on the Hawkeye after Ruger redesigned the 77 trigger. The finish it not as good as the 1st 77 but acceptable. w/walnut stock, its a beautiful rifle.

 

[Big7]

As several in this thread have attested, Ruger produced some horribly inaccurate firearms in the mid 80s through mid 90s, including my 7mm mag that struggled to hold 3.5 MOA at 100 yards. Why is it hard to understand where we are coming from?

How many of your five shooters are stock models from 1985-1995?

The one I shot the six round group, 1 on the plate, 5 on the paper was a M77 M2. In 7MM Rem. Mag.

Bought it new around 98'. Not sure of manufacture date.

 

[SwampWolf]

I have NO idea where the "Ruger is not accurate" camp comes from but I can SHOW you the
5 that I have will shoot where you shoot.

Neither do I. But all of the Model 77s I've owned (I currently have Model 77s chambered in .30-06 and .257 Roberts and MKIIs chambered in .308 and 7x64 Brenneke) have proven to be very accurate rifles.

 

[Mauser lover]

I've used an older M77 Mark II in .30-06 a bit. My best group was stacking the (handloaded) bullets at 250 yards. That was good enough for me for "hunting" accuracy. Oh, this was bone stock, other than a scope. Actually I may have had a bipod on it at the time too. But no trigger work, no bedding work.

Not to say that they have never had a sour run, but the Ruger rifles that I've used (albeit a limited sampling) have been fantabulous. I just don't have enough money to stock two dozen hunting rifles, otherwise I would probably stock two dozen Ruger M77s (what can I say, I like the tang safeties!). Short of being able to do that... I was seriously considering getting a Hawkeye in .25-06 that turned up used locally. I didn't end up getting it (a pistol spoke to me louder) but I wouldn't hesitate to "pull the trigger" on another deal that might turn up someday. So, for me... No experience with Hawkeyes, but I would get one in a heartbeat.

 

[LoonWulf]

Ive shot 2 mid 90s m77s quite a bit, and did minor work on, or developed loads for maybe 4 or 5 others. None but one of the late 90s which i shot offten, shot sub moa. The others were pretty solid 1.5-2" if i remember correctly, some of which i shot 20rnds thru others which had load development were closer to 100rnds.

Flip side every ruger ive shot recently has been moa, better than, or damn near.

I REALLY like the new rugers, oddly enough its the safety on the m77s/Hawkeyes thats had me sell a couple even tho i liked them.

 

[M1key]

"Flip side every ruger ive shot recently has been moa, better than, or damn near."

Thanks to Ruger's new barrel making equipment...

M

 

[MistWolf]

Back in the 70s, I was hearing the M77 was not known for its accuracy. I had one in 308 and it was ok, but not as accurate as the Remingtons the rest of the family was shooting and not as accurate as the 98 Mauser in 6mm that I had

 

[someguy2800]

Hmmm.., interesting thoughts. I might have to go play with both for awhile in the store and see which jumps out at me.

My dad told me after giving up on his 77 22 hornet that he brought it to a gunsmith he knew that specializes in benchrest guns to see about rebarreling it and the guy told him that he had a whole bin full of barrels off of M77's and number 1's that he had rebarreled for hunting rifles and that ruger had no clue how to make a barrel. This was a good 10 years ago.

 

[someguy2800]

I should add to that in this case I would be expecting a sub moa 10 shot gun after bedding and handloading. I know it's not what I need, but it's what I want. Otherwise it will always be a disappointment to me.