77/44 blues

[Otley]

I live in the UK and have been reading posts on this forum for a while and finally decided to register. So Hello from Blighty!

About a year ago I bought a new stainless 77/44 for use on the local range. I say new, but it's actually an 09 model with a serial number within 20 of the start of the new introduction of the 77/44. I have found the gun to be very inaccurate. I've tried squib loads, light loads, medium loads and full house loads with cast bullets (sized .429 and .431), semi jacketed bullets and full jacketed bullets. You name it - nothing will produce better than 6" – 8" groups at 50 yards. And each loading produces wildly differing points of impact (if you can actually determine where the POI is, given the group sizes).

I have a 2-7 Leupold scope on it (securely) and shoot with front and rear sandbag rests. I measured the headspace, which was within spec and checked the barrel for any burrs or marks and there were none. I was starting to become convinced that the barrel must be loose. But then I noticed that the stock fore end was in hard contact with the barrel. Attaching a spring balance to the fore end sling swivel stud needs 8 lbs of force to move the stock from the barrel.

I then took the barrelled action out of the stock and clamped the receiver in a machine vice bolted to one end of a milling machine table. I clamped a DTI to the table with the dial gauge pointer touching the barrel muzzle. Applying 8lbs of force to the barrel at the point where the stock fore end touches the barrel produced a deflection of the muzzle of .008". At first I was horrified that such light pressure produced so much deflection, but then realised that .008" at 18.5" is only 0.77" at 1800" (or 50 yards).

Anyway, I got some .031" brass shim and cut a rectangular piece to go between the stock and receiver where the front receiver screw is. The piece ended up being 1" x ¾" with a 7/32" hole in the middle for the stock screw. With both stock screws tightened, there is now about a 1/32" gap between the barrel and stock fore end (ie the barrel is free floating).

So, we'll have another range session next weekend with a few choice loads and see if there's any improvement in its accuracy.

Despite all, I have a grudging liking for this neat little gun. The bolt is free of slop and I have gotten a good 2 ½ lb trigger pull with just a little stoning of the stock parts. But the barrel is awfully slim and flexible and there is no conventional recoil lug – the recoil is transmitted to the stock entirely by the rear tang. If anyone out there has discovered the secret to making these carbines shoot straight, I'd be awfully interested…

Thanks for reading.

 

[RJ556]

Otley, welcome to our forum. I have owned one of the early production and one of the late production 77/44's. I regret to inform you that I had tried everything I could think of to get those rifles to shoot accurately and was not able to do it. I tried all weights of bullets, factory loads, free-floating the barrel. you name it. I could get my later gun to shoot consistiently into 6 or 7 inches at 100 yards, but that is about the best I could do. I could occasionally pull out a group of 2" or a bit less, but for every small group like that, it shot 10 of the shotgun pattern groups. I think the 44 magnum is alright for ranges under 50 yards, accuracy wise. Now when other posters here start posting, they will say that they get consistient 1" or 1.5" groups. I would have to see it to believe it. I am pretty sure it is not my shooting tecnique because I now own a Ruger 77/357 and I can consistiently shoot groups less than 2", many times an inch and under. What I just stated may not sound impressive. That is because it is the truth, not internet BS, as you hear so much of, people reporting bench rest rifle sized groups from hunting rifles. If I was you, I would cut my loses and sell your 77/44 and buy a 77/357. It will make you a lot happier.

 

[Vic]

I don't own one of these rifles, however - I just bought the "July, 2012" copy of "Rifle" magazine andBrian Pearce has authored an article about Ruger 77/44's and 77/357's. He discussed accuracy issues he also had and what he did to correct them.

FYI.......

Regards, Vic

 

[Otley]

Thanks Vic. I had a look at the Rifle magazine web site. The preview for the July issue ends at page 55 and the 77/44 article is on page 64. Doh! Could you tell me what mods they did and what accuracy they achieved?

 

[Vic]

OK....here we go, Brian Pearce is the author ;

"Initially the .44 magnum gave rather disappointing accuracy, with 75-yard groups hovering around 3-6" with factory loads and handloads. Guard screws were tightened to specifications, the barrel cleaned with all copper removed and fired again, but results were the same. The bore was thoroughly cleaned again using Bore Tech Copper Remover, then coated with a light film of Montana X-Treme Bore Conditioner ( a fine, silicone-free oil ), then one jacketed bullet load was fired and the barrel cleaned again. This was repeated 10 times. Then three shots were fired, the barrel cleaned and lightly oiled, which was repeated five times.
The process took approximately 2 1/2 hours, but the rifle settled down, displaying good accuracy with a variety of bullets and loads. First tried was a handload containing a Hornady 240-grain HP/XTP bullet with 21.0 grains of Accurate No. 9 and a CCI 300 primer in a Starline case. A four shot group clustered under one inch at 75 yards. Subsequent groups with that same load more or less duplicated the first".

At this point Brian references Table 1 on page 68 which I am unable to duplicate for this purpose, however - if you want to e-mail me, I can scan this table ( or article for that matter ) and attach it to a return e-mail.

I hope this helps.

Regards, Vic

 

[led]

Two words, fire lapping. Bear tooth bullets has a how to book about the topic.

Later,
Stephen

 

[RJ556]

I really like Brian Pierce, but honestly, his procedure on the 77/44 sounds like "Snake Oil" to me. Come on, this is no different than barrel break-in bull. And to me for a carbine I would rather use 100 yards as an accuracy standard. I know that many are satisfied with using their 44 carbines for hunting at ranges of no more than approximately 50 yards. At 50 yards, I would still want a carbine to group consistiently not over 2". As I stated before, I believe the 44 magnum is a fine 50 yard cartridge. I really do not think fire lapping will help a 77/44. The reason I say this is because both my early and late versions of the 77/44 had very smooth bores. And both shot no more consistiently after 200 to 250 rounds down the pipe. Even though the relatively slow moving 44 mag bullets did not deposit much copper fouling in the bore, I normally cleaned them after every range session. This is just my experienced opinion.

 

[VAdoublegunner]

Does the 77/44 have some peculiar rate of twist? Is it better or worse with heavy for caliber bullets? How about light for caliber bullets, say 180s? Perhaps a long leade and excessive freebore?

The reason I ask is that I have 2 Win 94 Trappers, one in 45 Colt and another in 44 Mag, and they are very accurate. In fact, the 44Mag with downloaded 240gr LSWCs was so good it was what I used for cowboy lever action silhouette for a while. I'd have to check their twist, but it seems to work with the right load whatever it is.

I like Pearce on many issues. I do find it interesting that essentially breaking in the barrel solved the problem, and I have had, e.g. a new T/C Contender carbine 22LR barrel of all things that just-would-not-shoot until I worked it over well with JB bore paste. So perhaps the barrels are rough.

 

[led]

I have seen fire lapping do wonders for some guns, nothing for others. Mileage will vary of course. When I get a new gun in and it doesn't shoot well fire lapping is my first stop.

Later,
Stephen

 

[Jimbo357mag]

As I understand it one of the big problems with pistol caliber rifles and accuracy is the way the chamber is cut. Rimmed cartridges will usually have a very long lead or free-bore cut before the rifling starts. This allows many types of bullets to be used but is not optimized for accuracy. That long jump to the rifling allows bullets to upset and not seat into the rifling correctly. Any wobble and the bullet won't be accurate. That free-bore and several other factors like sectional density and less than perfect nose shape work against most pistol caliber bullets.

Individual rifles can have individual problems or there can be problems associated with a certain brands or models. Ruger seems to have a problem with bedding the actions and barrels. I know my 96/44 will string shots vertically if I tighten the barrel band. Keeping the band loose allows the barrel to grow and not pull shot down.

 

[Watergoat]

First thing I would do is slug the bore. Also check the amount of effort to push the slug, looking for tight or loose spots. Friend of mine had a Super Blackhawk years ago that had the same erratic grouping. We finally thought of slugging the bore. It was tight at the muzzle and forcing cone, but literally fell by gravity about 4 inches in the middle. He had purchased it new, and never had a bore obstruction. That one went to the next gunshow.

 

[Otley]

Thanks for all the replies.

I took the gun to the range with a variety of loads to see if the free-floated barrel made any difference. Things started promisingly with the Lyman 240 grain cast cowboy bullet sized .431" and 5.5 grains of Bullseye. These were grouping into 2 1/2" at 50 yards, so I tried some loads using the same bullet but with 18.7 grains of 2400. The POI with these was so high it was off the target, which is odd - I'd expect a heavier load to shoot lower. Anyway, after I adjusted the scope, I was back to my 6-8" groups.

240 grain jacketed bullets with 20 grains of 2400 produced a slight improvement, but nothing spectacular. I finished the session with more 240 grain cast loads, using 10 grains of Unique and giving more 6-8" groups.

Before I bought my .431" Lubrisizer die, I did slug the bore and it was .430" as near as I could measure it, with no loose or tight spots.

I always clean the barrel when I get home with firstly a bronze brush and some Hoppe's No 9, then with tissue patches on a jag. When I'd finished, I looked through the barrel and could see some leading remaining in the first half inch of rifling, so maybe 5.5 grains of Bullsey is the hottest cast bullet loading my barrel will stand. The idea, though, of taking my new gun and shooting jacketed bullets coated in valve grinding paste through it worries me a little.

I don't think my shim achieved very much, so I've removed it and think I'll clear out the leading with a few hot jacketed loads and then stick with my Lyman bullets and 5.5 grains of Bullseye. It's easier on the ears and shoulder anyway.

On the matter of rifling twist, if you apply the old Greenhill formula to a .44 cal, 240 grain bullet, you get a recommended twist of exactly 1 in 38", which is what the current .44 Marlins use. The 77/44 has a 1 in 20" twist, which is the same rate as the original S&W Model 29s and Ruger Super Blackhawk revovers. Maybe, fast 240 grain .44 Magnum loads are better with the 1 in 38" twist. I wonder why Ruger chose 1 in 20" for the 77/44..

Otley

 

[buck460XVR]

My 77/44 will consistently put all 4 shots from it's magazine into a 3 inch circle @ 100 yards. This is a 240gr Nosler JSP or Hornady XTP over 23.5 gr of H110/W296. This accuracy is similar to my Marlin .44 lever. I don't expect much more than that from a handgun caliber carbine. I did do a trigger exchange tho that helped considerably.

 

[mike7mm08]

Ruger went with a faster twist with all of it's recent 44 rifles. A 1in20 is usually acceptable with 240 grain bullets. You want to shoot any of the heavy weight 44 bullets that 1 in 38 may not work out too well.

 

[Watergoat]

M708 has it right. The 1/38 twist is also why 444 Marlins don't do well with much over 240 gr bullets, and the caliber has pretty much faded away. If Marlin would change to 1/20 and Ballard rifling they would have a wonderful woods rifle. A 300 grain .429 bullet at 1800-2300 would be good for just about anything in North America. Just about the last word in hog rifles.

 

[wwb]

........ The idea, though, of taking my new gun and shooting jacketed bullets coated in valve grinding paste through it worries me a little........

I know it sounds terrible, but my son had a heavy barrel AR .223 that wouldn't shoot worth a darn. As a last-ditch effort, he tried the Tubbs "final finish" series of abrasive coated bullets. They run from very fine to very,very,very fine abrasive. They worked wonders on that barrel, and based on his results, I wouldn't hesitate to try it.

First, though, you nedd to get ALL that lead out of the barrel. If you're hell-bent on shooting cast bullets, at least put a gas check on them if you're not already doing so. For 1200 fps or thereabouts with no leading problems, Ranier Ballistics or Berry's plated bullets work very well, and are pretty reasonably priced.

 

[kf6gub]

I live in the UK and have been reading posts on this forum for a while and finally decided to register. So Hello from Blighty!

About a year ago I bought a new stainless 77/44 for use on the local range. I say new, but it's actually an 09 model with a serial number within 20 of the start of the new introduction of the 77/44. I have found the gun to be very inaccurate. I've tried squib loads, light loads, medium loads and full house loads with cast bullets (sized .429 and .431), semi jacketed bullets and full jacketed bullets. You name it - nothing will produce better than 6" – 8" groups at 50 yards. And each loading produces wildly differing points of impact (if you can actually determine where the POI is, given the group sizes).

I have a 2-7 Leupold scope on it (securely) and shoot with front and rear sandbag rests. I measured the headspace, which was within spec and checked the barrel for any burrs or marks and there were none. I was starting to become convinced that the barrel must be loose. But then I noticed that the stock fore end was in hard contact with the barrel. Attaching a spring balance to the fore end sling swivel stud needs 8 lbs of force to move the stock from the barrel.

I then took the barrelled action out of the stock and clamped the receiver in a machine vice bolted to one end of a milling machine table. I clamped a DTI to the table with the dial gauge pointer touching the barrel muzzle. Applying 8lbs of force to the barrel at the point where the stock fore end touches the barrel produced a deflection of the muzzle of .008". At first I was horrified that such light pressure produced so much deflection, but then realised that .008" at 18.5" is only 0.77" at 1800" (or 50 yards).

Anyway, I got some .031" brass shim and cut a rectangular piece to go between the stock and receiver where the front receiver screw is. The piece ended up being 1" x ¾" with a 7/32" hole in the middle for the stock screw. With both stock screws tightened, there is now about a 1/32" gap between the barrel and stock fore end (ie the barrel is free floating).

So, we'll have another range session next weekend with a few choice loads and see if there's any improvement in its accuracy.

Despite all, I have a grudging liking for this neat little gun. The bolt is free of slop and I have gotten a good 2 ½ lb trigger pull with just a little stoning of the stock parts. But the barrel is awfully slim and flexible and there is no conventional recoil lug – the recoil is transmitted to the stock entirely by the rear tang. If anyone out there has discovered the secret to making these carbines shoot straight, I'd be awfully interested…

Thanks for reading.

When I went to 300 grain bullets, things got a lot better. A couple of bullets practically kissed each other at the target. 225 grain bullets were scattered.

 

[RJ556]

kf6gub, I'm glad you had success with the 300's. In my earlier post I stated that I tried all different bullet weights in my quest for accuracy in the 77/44. The 300 grain Hornady's were among those tested. Unfortunately, they did no better for me than the 240 grainers when loaded over W296, H110 and 2400.

 

[kf6gub]

kf6gub, I'm glad you had success with the 300's. In my earlier post I stated that I tried all different bullet weights in my quest for accuracy in the 77/44. The 300 grain Hornady's were among those tested. Unfortunately, they did no better for me than the 240 grainers when loaded over W296, H110 and 2400.

Have you tried cast bullets?

 

[RJ556]

I was not really interested in trying cast bullets. I did not want to limit myself to using cast bullet ammo if that was the only thing that was going to shoot consistiently in the rifle.

I did find that firmly holding the fore end with my off hand and resting it on the front rest, resulted in more consistient groups than just resting the fore end directly on the front rest when shooting it.