twoblink
Member
I have read how horrible the integrated mounting system is for the M77. Is it really that bad? Anybody have one and want to share their experiences?
Ruger M77, scope mounting system question
- Thread starter twoblink
- Start date
- Status
it is a strong system, and serves many hunters quite well.
the troubles w/ it are that your mounting options are extremely limited, and expensive. there are other drawbacks, too, but they are more specific to the target shooter... like i said, the system works for the average hunter.
because of the integrated base system, ruger is one of the very last rifles i look to when i am ready for a new one.
the troubles w/ it are that your mounting options are extremely limited, and expensive. there are other drawbacks, too, but they are more specific to the target shooter... like i said, the system works for the average hunter.
because of the integrated base system, ruger is one of the very last rifles i look to when i am ready for a new one.
nextjoe
Member
twoblink,
I'm curious what "horrible" things you've heard about the Ruger mounting system. The only negative I've heard is that some people think they're ugly.
Best,
Joe
I'm curious what "horrible" things you've heard about the Ruger mounting system. The only negative I've heard is that some people think they're ugly.
Best,
Joe
critter
Member
I like them myself. They are strong and can be removed and replaced without much loss of zero. Very convenient since you do not have to buy bases then rings. I suppose they are not quite as versatile as to scope placement options however.
I did have a little trouble on a Redhawk .44 mag with the rings holding the scope without slipping. I noticed the rings came together when tightened. A few minutes stoning off some rough milling marks and they work great.
To each his own.
I did have a little trouble on a Redhawk .44 mag with the rings holding the scope without slipping. I noticed the rings came together when tightened. A few minutes stoning off some rough milling marks and they work great.
To each his own.
JNewell
Member
I purchased a Ruger 77 flatbolt recently (not bad, only waited 35 years). I am pretty impressed with the rings and receiver mounting. I don't know if offset rings are available, but otherwise I would say it's head and shoulders over the old Redfield/Leupold style with the windage-adjustable rear. Beautiful they're not, nor light, but they are rugged and they are reasonably true as shipped -- at least this one is. Most of my other scopes are mounted in DD rings, but these seem more than adequate.
swifter
Member
Worst prob I had was that the bases were a bit misaligned: Burris Signature Rings for Ruger fixed that right up
.
Tom
.Tom
Shooter973
Member
M77 scope mounts.
I purchased a brand new M77 stainless, in 30-06, with the laminated stock and a brand new scope for it, a 3x9 mildot. When I mounted the scope to the rifle and took it to the range to sight it in I was very pleased with it. With the first 3 shots it was only off to the right about 2 inches and 1 inch down from dead center at 100yrds. Nearly perfect alignment of the mounts, rings and brand new scope. You just can't ask for better than that. The first 3 shot group was less than 1 inch with my regular hunting load.
I purchased a brand new M77 stainless, in 30-06, with the laminated stock and a brand new scope for it, a 3x9 mildot. When I mounted the scope to the rifle and took it to the range to sight it in I was very pleased with it. With the first 3 shots it was only off to the right about 2 inches and 1 inch down from dead center at 100yrds. Nearly perfect alignment of the mounts, rings and brand new scope. You just can't ask for better than that. The first 3 shot group was less than 1 inch with my regular hunting load.
twoblink
Member
I've read several complaints of "MalAlignment" and they being fragile...
Kestryll
member
I'm pretty sure they are the same rings and mount that is on my Mini-14 Ranch.
If it is they are many things but NOT fragile. I actually like the way they work, the rings are a large part of why I want a M77 in 5.56.
If it is they are many things but NOT fragile. I actually like the way they work, the rings are a large part of why I want a M77 in 5.56.
256M-S
Member
Ruger Extension rings are available in the system. They are essential to mounting a short straight tube scope like the 1.5-5X on a Number one or 77.
Nothing wrong with Ruger mounts in my limited opinion. Knowledgeable hunters for years have suggested that integral mounts are the way to go and have envied the BRNO design. Bill Ruger was smart enough to offer it. Of course, it really cuts into the aftermarket profits for sellers of bases and rings.
I think most complaints about Ruger scope mounts stem from the current age where folks to do more talking about guns or setting up indestructible crew served sniper weapons or hunting rifles with moon scopes for shooting from bench rests, rather than hunting with them.
There are prettier mounting systems and no QD mount will be as ultimately reliable as a rigid mount on something like a serious varminter or bench rest gun, but the Ruger mounts work quite well on practical hunting rifles.
Cheers all
Nothing wrong with Ruger mounts in my limited opinion. Knowledgeable hunters for years have suggested that integral mounts are the way to go and have envied the BRNO design. Bill Ruger was smart enough to offer it. Of course, it really cuts into the aftermarket profits for sellers of bases and rings.
I think most complaints about Ruger scope mounts stem from the current age where folks to do more talking about guns or setting up indestructible crew served sniper weapons or hunting rifles with moon scopes for shooting from bench rests, rather than hunting with them.
There are prettier mounting systems and no QD mount will be as ultimately reliable as a rigid mount on something like a serious varminter or bench rest gun, but the Ruger mounts work quite well on practical hunting rifles.
Cheers all
Coltdriver
Member
I have ruger #1's and a #3.
They use the same rings as the 77.
I have never had a problem with them holding zero or anything else.
They are a bit expensive if you want a lower or higher mount but ebay ususally has them for 25 to 30 bucks.
They use the same rings as the 77.
I have never had a problem with them holding zero or anything else.
They are a bit expensive if you want a lower or higher mount but ebay ususally has them for 25 to 30 bucks.
JNewell
Member
Misalignment would be a problem. In that case, I think I'd be tempted to send the rifle back to the factory. Didn't see it on the one M77 I own, but it's a very early rifle and maybe I was just lucky. Gotta figure some lemons come off of every production line.
Fragile -- having handled these in person, I'd rate them as very sturdy. Not pretty, but typical semi-chunky Ruger and quite sturdy. As 256M-S says, not what you'd put on a Barrett .50 but he's right IMO that there is a culture that's developed that really over-buys rings/mounts. Having indestructible mounts and rings doesn't prove much if the optic itself is impaired or destroyed by a mishap, unless maybe you want to make sure you can remove the optic and use the rings like a pair of ghost rings. I have rifles set up with the Leupold DD rings that get laughed at in some quarters as fragile, but I don't see it. There are places where you need the F350, but going into town to get groceries ain't one of 'em.
Fragile -- having handled these in person, I'd rate them as very sturdy. Not pretty, but typical semi-chunky Ruger and quite sturdy. As 256M-S says, not what you'd put on a Barrett .50 but he's right IMO that there is a culture that's developed that really over-buys rings/mounts. Having indestructible mounts and rings doesn't prove much if the optic itself is impaired or destroyed by a mishap, unless maybe you want to make sure you can remove the optic and use the rings like a pair of ghost rings. I have rifles set up with the Leupold DD rings that get laughed at in some quarters as fragile, but I don't see it. There are places where you need the F350, but going into town to get groceries ain't one of 'em.
- Status
