Ruger M77 Hawkeye - QQ Major issues

[JPSauer]

There are many people who are loyal to certain rifles, brand loyalty is fine and even fun. Yes my screen name is a brand too - but I simply put that up because i thought there was a way to change it when making my account and just saw this brand on a leaflet infront of my pc (i have owned a Sauer but not any more, and I do like them), moving on. I have had no experience with Ruger up until now and am dumbfounded as to how a company with such poor QQ has managed to stay in business. Further I found no complaints about any of these issues online. This led me to believe either there is a strong brand-loyal crowd overlooking these issues, or, I have a lemon (evidence points towards the former). If anyone is from the Ruger fanclub, I do not aim to offend anyone, I am just going to point out the objective issues I have faced with the M77 Hawkeye. Where I am from, (OZ) the rifle was only available 6 hours drive so I had to BUY it have it transferred to a dealer local to me before I saw it. Lets get to it:

Background, I recently learned (after my purchase) that Ruger uses investment cast process to cast. Yes it is different from conventional cast. However, that difference is simply the process allows for a greater range of steels to be used (stainless, titanium etc), with greater detail (small parts with greater accuracy - better finish), not in strength. Cast steel, regardless of the process, is never as strong as forged. Argument I read is if its 'good enough for planes' - but it isnt, planes use forged for all areas requiring strength, and just like cars, not all planes are built equal. I have found some forum threads on other forums that mention the Ruger No1 proven to withstand 200PSI, yet, there is NO documented evidence. And even if this were the case, that does not prove the (cast v forged) argument. There is no argument, its simple fact, forged is far stronger than cast as the forging process strengthens steel.

For those that dont know, Ruger uses cast for almost everything except the barrel (because cast could never provide the tensile strength required) I cant stress this enough. A cast trigger guard etc I can live with. But, every little piece of steel Ruger uses appears to be CAST. Bolt, Receiver, extractor claw (really Ruger?) down to the detailed of the safety switch. Unimpressed? The cost savings from cast isnt enough for greedy Ruger to bother applying a small amount of machining to remove cast marks. The Ruger Hawkeye range comes in at about $1800 for their cheapest variant. Pick one up, look at it properly, cast marks on bolt handle etc. The inside of receiver has a very raw finish, its like sliding a bolt on 80 grit sand paper. A very cheaply manufactured rifle with a premium price. I do not know of a rifle brand that is finished in such poor craftsmanship and quality.

If the cast marks on every part of the rifle other than the barrel were not bad enough, the stock was not machined in properly to leave a large gap around the receiver. wood stain (yes it is stained) was on the Ruger badge on the bottom of the grip and grain was still porous. Yes the bolt handle has the flakey casting marks on it as does the whole bolt. It is not a effect in the image.

In summary issue with the Ruger hawkeye M77 range:
1. pitting marks from cast found on pretty much everything except barrel.
2. inside of receiver as rough as grinding gravel
3. cast mold marks on everything except barrel
4. poor stock fitting
5. stock stained with Zero QQ (NOT OILED FINISH).
6. Slop in the bolt when fully locked :|

For an almost $2000 rifle, if your happy with the above, go ahead, otherwise look elsewhere.... And literally anywhere else. Compared to a $600 Howa, the Howa looks like a level up in craftsmanship...

This will be the first and last Ruger I will ever purchase. If you look at Ruger Hawkeye M77 images from the internet (even Ruger website) and look at the bolt handle ring where it meets up with the Bolt, be prepared to have that finish across everything that isnt machined (pretty much only the outside surface of the receiver - pitting from cast marks.

See images below. Compare this to any of the rifles you have at home not made by Ruger and tell me if you would pay $2k for this level of QC.

Rifle has been sent to NIOA under warranty, I would not accept a $2k rifle in this condition.

View attachment 1123106
View attachment 1123107
View attachment 1123108
View attachment 1123109
View attachment 1123110
View attachment 1123112
View attachment 1123113
View attachment 1123114
View attachment 1123115
View attachment 1123120
View attachment 1123128
View attachment 1123129
View attachment 1123136

 

[crestoncowboy]

Certainly doesn't look like a nearly 2k dollar rifle to me.

 

[Roverguy]

You make a good case. There are lots of Ruger fans and a lot of internet documentation on Ruger flaws - from the deplorable accuracy of the early Mini-14 to the design issues that plagued the Red Label shotgun, to many complaints about inconsistent accuracy on early M77s.

Having said that, I own two: a Blackhawk in 45 Colt and a No 3 in 30-40. I find the Blackhawk to be an excellent firearm in both quality and accuracy. The No. 3 is not particularly finely finished but it’s a good looking rifle and quite accurate, though they too have a reputation for intermittent accuracy.

I have never been interested in the M77 based on the reviews I have seen over the years and yours above adds to my conviction. But I can’t buy into a general condemnation of Ruger based on one or two products or one’s views of investment casting. By all accounts they have made a success of the Marlin 1895, for example. The 10/22 remains wildly popular. And they make a number of well regarded handguns.

 

[Stevel]

While your gun seems to have a little more to deal with than most, I would call Ruger. They have always been responsive to me.

BTW- As a general rule, expressing appreciation and understanding to the customer service rep's goes a long way. They deal with mean / upset people all day long. Treat them nicely and express gratitude for their assistance and you may be surprised at what they will do for you.

I.E. "I know this must be a one off problem, but I wanted to make you aware of it and see if anything can be done...I like Ruger firearms and would like to buy more in the future....etc." The service reps have always been kind and helpful to me when I use this technique.

I hope the service people you mentioned will get it repaired quickly. Good luck.

 

[Rubone]

Don't know what QQ is so your argument failed from the get-go. Check your stocking for sticks and coal....

 

[Varminterror]

Certainly doesn't look like a nearly 2k dollar rifle to me.

It’s not.

It’s a $1300 MSRP/$1100 street Ruger M77 Hawkeye Hunter.

Aussies just have weak currency. Everything is more expensive there.

 

[JPSauer]

Yes I am sorry, for us its $1900 AUD
But given these are the prices for other new rifles in AUD.
Browning Xbolt $1700
Tikka $1650
Howa $600
Weatherby $900
CZ 600 $1700-1900 (depending on model)
Winchester M70 $2000 (Supergrade model is $2700)
Sako $2900-3500 ($1500 for the A7)

 

[Ru4real]

Three questions.
1. Why didn’t you notice these blemishes before you purchased?
2. Does everything (safety, bolt, feeding, etc.) function properly?
3. How does the gun shoot? Because, that’s what guns are for.

 

[JPSauer]

You make a good case. There are lots of Ruger fans and a lot of internet documentation on Ruger flaws - from the deplorable accuracy of the early Mini-14 to the design issues that plagued the Red Label shotgun, to many complaints about inconsistent accuracy on early M77s.

Having said that, I own two: a Blackhawk in 45 Colt and a No 3 in 30-40. I find the Blackhawk to be an excellent firearm in both quality and accuracy. The No. 3 is not particularly finely finished but it’s a good looking rifle and quite accurate, though they too have a reputation for intermittent accuracy.

I have never been interested in the M77 based on the reviews I have seen over the years and yours above adds to my conviction. But I can’t buy into a general condemnation of Ruger based on one or two products or one’s views of investment casting. By all accounts they have made a success of the Marlin 1895, for example. The 10/22 remains wildly popular. And they make a number of well regarded handguns.

Well said actually, and I agree. I do not have any of their other firearms, not to say they arent good. This was my first experience with Ruger and I always had a high view of the company (which is why i purchased this) before actually seeing it.

 

[red rick]

Why did you go with a high dollar Ruger over the others that you listed ? The M77 has never impressed me . I do like my cheap Ruger American , but if I was going to spend what a M77 cost it would be at the bottom of my list .

 

[JPSauer]

Hello Ruforreal,
1. Because there was only 2 in the country one in another state ($1000 in plane tickets to visit) and the other 6 hours away. So I had it sent to a dealer near me (needed to buy this without seeing it to have it sent) - it is currently back at shop sent to the Ruger dealer/wholesaler under warranty.
2. Everything seems to function properly, not sure about slop in the bolt when fully locked, none of my other bolt action rifles do this. Cycling bolt feels like grinding gravel.
3. Didnt shoot it as I sent it back as soon as I got it. And a rifle isnt simply something that shoots an accurately, for some perhaps, others also treasure the finish of a rifle, craftsmanship - this is why people pay alot of money for figured stocks and nicely finished firearms. At this price point, one would expect a better finish, dont you think?

 

[JPSauer]

Why did you go with a high dollar Ruger over the others that you listed ? The M77 has never impressed me . I do like my cheap Ruger American , but if I was going to spend what a M77 cost it would be at the bottom of my list .

I wanted a control feed (i know there is no real advantage), I just like a control feed rifle, preference. I have a few cz 550s boy are they build beautifully. I was of the impression that the M77 was a fine rifle.

 

[Ru4real]

Hello Ruforreal,
At this price point, one would expect a better finish, dont you think?

Indeed, I do agree the finish should be better. And it sounds like you did your diligence as soon as you could. I hope you are refunded and you can use the money to get something you enjoy and are proud of.

 

[JeeperCreeper]

I love the Ruger because it is a budget Mauser.

At the prices you have to pay, it is no longer a budget option. I would have picked something else.

My moose rifle is an M77 in 338RCM and it is a superb rifle (see profile pic, laying across the antlers). I don't really care about small blemishes on it. But I'll have to check, because your pictures look nothing like mine.

Sorry you had a bad experience. But since you're so close to Japan, stick with the $600 Howas.

 

[Varminterror]

I was of the impression that the M77 was a fine rifle.

Who mislead you to believe the Ruger M77’s were “fine rifles”?

Rugers are and always have been working man’s rifles, at their finest.

 

[adcoch1]

I have two m77 rifles currently, and have owned others. One is a Hawkeye model. All of my rifles have been tons better than your pictures. I wouldn't call them fine rifles, easily a step beneath anything made by CZ for example, but they are good durable working man's rifles. Yours needs to go back to Ruger, somebody forgot to finish it before you got it. I really hope they get you satisfied, and I believe they will, but as stated above, stick to the Howa for price. I couldn't stomach $1900 for any Ruger rifle...

 

[dh1633pm]

Current exchange rate is .67 to one AUD. Your rifle got the ship it, and forget it treatment. I have a singular M77 and it is light years away from yours.

 

[JPSauer]

People speak highly of them here.
Would you say Winchester Model 70 is a step up?

 

[earlthegoat2]

The price we pay is a bit more bearable and they have a few more expensive manufacturing processes than say, a Howa. Which by the way, $600 AUS for any Howa seems like a great deal to me. Especially when a Weatherby (presumably, a Vanguard) is $900 and they are nearly the same rifle built in the same factory I would guess.

I think you may be underestimating the investment casting process. It is a proven process demonstrated by years of Ruger revolvers standing up to pretty powerful loadings. I would agree that if a casting process is used then there should be a better attempt made at cleaning up the casting marks.

I also have a stainless Hawkeye. I wouldn’t say I am brand loyal. It was the rifle that showed up first that had the specs I wanted. If I went over it with a fine tooth comb and a microscope, I would probably see many of the same things you do in yours. I am content to not do that though and be happy about the 2 deer it got for me this year. Plus, I bought it second hand.

Winchester 70s have had some cosmetic QC issues as well recently.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/new-winchester-model-70.909272/

As was noted in that thread, it is pretty typical for off the shelf production rifles.

You might want to think about a full custom next time.

 

[JPSauer]

The 3 CZ550s I own are pretty much perfect.
I have 2 of the limited edition ones they are really nice (not a fan of the licorice barrel though) still very beautiful.
I should add, the dimensions of hte bolt for the cz550 and ruger are almost identical, the cz is about 150 grams heavier.

Its as you said the cleaning up casting marks is my issue.

I gota look into the Mod 70 after seeing that thread. Still look better than the ruger by far. I will visually inspect this one before purchase.

 

[jmr40]

QQ, I think you mean QC for quality control

Ruger has used castings since the company started. That is well known, and I'd think that by now it has proven itself. Done right it is plenty strong. But it certainly appears that Ruger is not putting in the time to properly finish their guns after the casting is completed. There are some cosmetic issues, but the 77 series (Which the Hawkwye is) has always proven to be one of the most rugged reliable rifles made. That is why people choose that rifle over others. Not because of looks or their accuracy. And I'll bet yours is just as rugged and reliable as predecessors.

Ruger has always been a budget gun that sold for less than most of the competition. So was the Remington 700 series, and 870. Both of those guns were revolutionary in how many cost cutting steps in manufacturing that were used, and both were looked down on when they were introduced as junk by many shooters.

But over time the cost cutting didn't seem to hurt accuracy in the case of the 700, nor reliability in the 870. Today most people consider those top end guns compared to the ever cheapening of even more budget guns. Most of the other guns you have listed are also budget rifles. The Sako is the only one I'd consider top end and the A7 and Tikka are their budget versions. Maybe the Winchester.

Hunters and shooters have voted with their wallets. Very few are willing to pay the $3000+ price tag of a well-made, gun with decent wood. When manufacturers make them, they sit unsold on shelves while hunters snap up $300-$500 budget guns. Then they complain about the quality.

 

[red rick]

People speak highly of them here.
Would you say Winchester Model 70 is a step up?

The model 70 , 3 steps ahead .

 

[dranrab]

That is an example of what I have come to expect from Ruger. They are an embarrassment to American manufacturing. People say that their customer service is outstanding. I take great exception to that. Great customer service is delivering a quality product, free of defects. To that end, they fail badly, far too often.

 

[sisyphus]

mine split the stock the first time it was fired
I'm not doing Ruger warranty again. I'm just going to drop it in a Boyd's laminate stock and never buy Ruger again.

 

[3Crows]

What is QQ mean?

I am probably wrong as always but I believe that you have gotten ahold of a rifle that was returned and which has been used and fitted with a different stock for whatever reason.

As to the casting marks, that is the difference between the original M77s and the later (current) Hawkeye M77 rifles, I think the earlier rifles they did clean up the casting marks, Ruger does not on the Hawkeyes. The casting marks bother me not at all, the Ruger is an investment cast receiver and it is as strong as any. But that gouge in the action that looks like a file mark and the misfit stock does look like enough for me to ask for a replacement rifle. Do not send it back for warranty, tell whoever you want a replacement rifle.