M77 rings
- Thread starter SHOOTER
- Start date
JimHnSTL
Single-Sixer
If you look at the receiver you will see that the front and rear are not the same ht.
Infact they are off by 1/8" or .125" so you have the proper set of rings with the rifle.
Infact they are off by 1/8" or .125" so you have the proper set of rings with the rifle.
All 77 centerfires, but I cant remember if rimfires are the same or not.
The short one goes where the highest dovetail is. I think that is in front and the high ring goes in back, but dont have one in front of me to swear by it.
huntsman22
Blackhawk
And I'll bet you could figure out the others, without help......
Silent Sam
Blackhawk
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Messages
- 728
"Why wouldn't ruger make the top of the rifle level/even?"
A better question is why would they. You get free rings. No "base" required, no extra anything required. If you want to change heights you need just one ring to increment up or down. Rimfires and revolvers use same height rings.
A better question is why would they. You get free rings. No "base" required, no extra anything required. If you want to change heights you need just one ring to increment up or down. Rimfires and revolvers use same height rings.
picketpin
Buckeye
The diameter of the FRONT receiver ring is dictated by the diamater needed to screw in the barrel AND the front locking lugs. There is nothing involved in the rear receiver ring that requires this diameter so they just don't.
Whether it's easier to cast or simply saves a few pennies worth of metal when caste I can't tell you but I'd bet it's either a cost or production consideration.
You can always find a round top (ST) they use the same NON-RUGER rings front and rear.
RWT
Whether it's easier to cast or simply saves a few pennies worth of metal when caste I can't tell you but I'd bet it's either a cost or production consideration.
You can always find a round top (ST) they use the same NON-RUGER rings front and rear.
RWT
Ladobe
Single-Sixer
"Is this the truth with all m77's? Even rimfires?"
Maybe with the newer versions of 77's, but not with the old. Neither my 77R or 77/22RS have different height rings. IOW they are interchangeable to front or back. The 77R with a Leupold 1 pc base and Leupold blind rings, the 77/22 with Ruger factory low.
Rumrunner said:
Maybe with the newer versions of 77's, but not with the old. Neither my 77R or 77/22RS have different height rings. IOW they are interchangeable to front or back. The 77R with a Leupold 1 pc base and Leupold blind rings, the 77/22 with Ruger factory low.
picketpin
Buckeye
Ladobe" Curious. You say your 77R does not use rings of different higth? Then you say it has Leupold bases. So does it use it use Leupold bases to bypass the factory receiver cuts or is it a round top that uses Model 700 bases? Even the early non prefix 77s have rings of two different sizes The exception is the 77ST or 77PL that have a round top receiver and no way to use "Ruger" rings.
I mostly have tang safety 77s with a few MKIIs and other than the STs all use different rings front to rear.
RWT
I mostly have tang safety 77s with a few MKIIs and other than the STs all use different rings front to rear.
RWT
Ladobe
Single-Sixer
picketpin:
I spoke from memory on the 77R 270Win as it's been a very long time since I've had it out and thought that was right. So I dug it out of the back of the safe... it is a 77R tang safety round top, 1974 vintage that has the Sullivan bolt, does have a Leupold one piece base and Leupold Blind Rings that are the exact same base height. What I didn't remember was the one piece base is slightly thicker at the rear ring base location... in effect making up for about a .050" difference with the front ring action height being that much higher than the rear one. Me old, me bad. Because of that error, I also got out my old 77/22 (1985 vintage) and confirmed that the ring base heights are exactly the same front and rear and interchangeable. So batting 500, not too bad considering I haven't shot the 77 since the 80's, or the 77/22 for a decade plus. Thanks for questioning me, got it straight now. :wink:
I spoke from memory on the 77R 270Win as it's been a very long time since I've had it out and thought that was right. So I dug it out of the back of the safe... it is a 77R tang safety round top, 1974 vintage that has the Sullivan bolt, does have a Leupold one piece base and Leupold Blind Rings that are the exact same base height. What I didn't remember was the one piece base is slightly thicker at the rear ring base location... in effect making up for about a .050" difference with the front ring action height being that much higher than the rear one. Me old, me bad. Because of that error, I also got out my old 77/22 (1985 vintage) and confirmed that the ring base heights are exactly the same front and rear and interchangeable. So batting 500, not too bad considering I haven't shot the 77 since the 80's, or the 77/22 for a decade plus. Thanks for questioning me, got it straight now. :wink:
picketpin
Buckeye
SO. your 77R is in fact a 77ST, The rings on the rim fire cam be the same size because the forward reciever ring can be smaller than a CF rifle.
I "sort" of collest STs. Or at least I have a bunch from 257 Roberts up to 338 Win Mag in Tang Safety guns.
RWT
I "sort" of collest STs. Or at least I have a bunch from 257 Roberts up to 338 Win Mag in Tang Safety guns.
RWT
Ladobe
Single-Sixer
picketpin:
I am certainly no expert on the early 77's, go by what I was told, what they were sold to me as, what I read. But from all of those it is not a 77ST that you say it in fact is IMO.
Per Ruger the 77 came in two receiver designs, a round top and w/integral base. The round top D&T for a variety of interchangeable (or not maybe) bases both one and two piece, the integral included factory rings (of different heights), and they came either with or without open sights models.
I've had other 77's that were earlier production than this 270Win, but none that were made later than it, including no MarkII's. Some facts about this one - I traded a still NIB 77R 243Win made in 1971 for it when a dealer friend couldn't find one for another customer in time for the upcoming deer opener. I had other 243/6mm's, I didn't have a Ruger 270 so made the trade. All of them were 77R's to me - what I was told they were when I got each of them, what the receipts for each listed them as, and they came from more than one dealer. And they all came NIB, were round tops, did not have open sights or the provisions for them. I doubt I still have the box for this rifle, but I do still have the receipts for it and the one I traded for it. This 270Win is not a 77ST from my reading simply because it did not come with open sights nor does it have the provisions for them. And it is not a 77PL as the D&T is not for a Redfield base only from what I am reading, assumed since it wears an unmodified "marked" Leupold base.
SO, it remains a 77R to me as my receipts state they all were until someone can prove to me they are something else with fact and not just speculation, that what I've read about the specs of each model is in error, including at Ruger (making my receipts for more than one 77"R" from more than one dealer also in error).
I found my error about 77 ring heights by digging the rifle out, finding the approx .050" step in my base I long forgot about to make up the difference in the lower rear receiver. All the rest of this about which model they are/were is just moot points actually. The 270 and the others I owned before it remain as 77R's to me, I really don't care if anybody can actually prove they were not, so see no reason for me to waste any more time or effort on it one way or the other.
I am certainly no expert on the early 77's, go by what I was told, what they were sold to me as, what I read. But from all of those it is not a 77ST that you say it in fact is IMO.
Per Ruger the 77 came in two receiver designs, a round top and w/integral base. The round top D&T for a variety of interchangeable (or not maybe) bases both one and two piece, the integral included factory rings (of different heights), and they came either with or without open sights models.
I've had other 77's that were earlier production than this 270Win, but none that were made later than it, including no MarkII's. Some facts about this one - I traded a still NIB 77R 243Win made in 1971 for it when a dealer friend couldn't find one for another customer in time for the upcoming deer opener. I had other 243/6mm's, I didn't have a Ruger 270 so made the trade. All of them were 77R's to me - what I was told they were when I got each of them, what the receipts for each listed them as, and they came from more than one dealer. And they all came NIB, were round tops, did not have open sights or the provisions for them. I doubt I still have the box for this rifle, but I do still have the receipts for it and the one I traded for it. This 270Win is not a 77ST from my reading simply because it did not come with open sights nor does it have the provisions for them. And it is not a 77PL as the D&T is not for a Redfield base only from what I am reading, assumed since it wears an unmodified "marked" Leupold base.
SO, it remains a 77R to me as my receipts state they all were until someone can prove to me they are something else with fact and not just speculation, that what I've read about the specs of each model is in error, including at Ruger (making my receipts for more than one 77"R" from more than one dealer also in error).
I found my error about 77 ring heights by digging the rifle out, finding the approx .050" step in my base I long forgot about to make up the difference in the lower rear receiver. All the rest of this about which model they are/were is just moot points actually. The 270 and the others I owned before it remain as 77R's to me, I really don't care if anybody can actually prove they were not, so see no reason for me to waste any more time or effort on it one way or the other.
picketpin
Buckeye
It's real simple. If it has the reciever cut for Ruger factory rings, or after market rings that use the same style of attachment, directly to the receiver then it's a 77R. If it's cut for Ruger rings but has sights it's an 77RS.
IF it is NOT cut for Ruger rings it is a Round Top Receiver. The top profile of the receiver is the same as the Long Action Remington 700 andthe Weatherby Vangaurd made back then (Howa) and can use a wide variety of after market bases and rings, to include, Redfield, Burris, Leupold and many others. The VAST majority of Round Tops had factory sights and were 77ST model rifles. The exception being the 77PL that were wholesaled mostly to Big Box stores so keep the price down and they did not have factory sights installed so they came in at a price point about $20 cheaper than anything else because they weren't supplied with rings (77R) or sights (77RS or 77ST). The vast majoritity of PLs were in fact 30-06 and 270s. I've never seen anything else.,
What some guy writes on your receipt hasn't much to do with it and trusting most retail gun guys to get it right is a leap of faith.
IF it has the receiver cut for Ruger style rings and NO sights it is a77R unless it's a 77V with a Varmint barrel. If it is not cut for Ruger rings and uses aftermarket bases/base regardless who made them in all likelihood it is a Round Top. After that it boils down to with or without sights, ST or PL.
Heck it's yours and you can call it what you want BUT it's worth more money if it is in fact a PL than a MUCH more common 77R
RWT
There were/are a bunch of after market bases made to installed on the standard action 77R so you could use non factory style rings. MOST but not all involved drilling and tapping the top of the receiver.
IF it is NOT cut for Ruger rings it is a Round Top Receiver. The top profile of the receiver is the same as the Long Action Remington 700 andthe Weatherby Vangaurd made back then (Howa) and can use a wide variety of after market bases and rings, to include, Redfield, Burris, Leupold and many others. The VAST majority of Round Tops had factory sights and were 77ST model rifles. The exception being the 77PL that were wholesaled mostly to Big Box stores so keep the price down and they did not have factory sights installed so they came in at a price point about $20 cheaper than anything else because they weren't supplied with rings (77R) or sights (77RS or 77ST). The vast majoritity of PLs were in fact 30-06 and 270s. I've never seen anything else.,
What some guy writes on your receipt hasn't much to do with it and trusting most retail gun guys to get it right is a leap of faith.
IF it has the receiver cut for Ruger style rings and NO sights it is a77R unless it's a 77V with a Varmint barrel. If it is not cut for Ruger rings and uses aftermarket bases/base regardless who made them in all likelihood it is a Round Top. After that it boils down to with or without sights, ST or PL.
Heck it's yours and you can call it what you want BUT it's worth more money if it is in fact a PL than a MUCH more common 77R
RWT
There were/are a bunch of after market bases made to installed on the standard action 77R so you could use non factory style rings. MOST but not all involved drilling and tapping the top of the receiver.
Ladobe
Single-Sixer
Ross, your latest detailed descriptions sound very reasonable, far more so than those I've read and tried to figure it out from myself. So I'll backup and bite.
Because all of those I owned appeared to be exactly the same config as this one except for different cartridges, it seemed reasonable to me that at least 4 dealers, including two large well establish gun shops I dealt with often for many years would call and sell all of them as R's if in fact they were ST's or PL's. Especially since they were all bought/traded for new in their original factory boxes that would have had not only the serial number but also the model designation on them, plus probably on their invoices. It being possibility that they may have ALL been wrong did not even occur to me.
Like all the others, this 270 did not come with factory rings nor factory open sights, does use aftermarket scope bases and not integrated rings, does not have D&T for open sights. It has a 22" barrel of unknown MFG (it is hand stamped, but not a mark that means anything to me or even if it has anything to do with who made the barrel). Like with the others I did scope, I had the dealer I got this one from install the base and rings that I paid extra for... none of them with Redfield, probably all with Leupold same as this one.
So from your above it sounds like at least this one is a PL, maybe they all were. If not? With its vintage (71-226XX) any idea of what barrel it has? I've seen Douglas, Wilson, others claimed on the earlier 77's IOW but not with authority and not what years possibly if even true. I've also seen that some also felt the early 77's didn't shoot very well. This one did, very well even with factory ammo (Federal Premium 130's and 150's in the 70's I still have some of), so whatever the barrel is it was a great shooter even before I later put a target trigger in it thiniing I might get some use out of it after I stopped hunting big game P&V hunting - but never did (I still have the original tigger for it).
As far as value one model verses another doesn't really matter that much to me. It was for hunting (stock shows it although overall and all the metal is in great condition), it did it well for me, didn't get shot all that much because I was a handgun hunter first, and never will get shot again by me. But as a rifle that was used for a few years hiking in the high Rockies it is not really a collectors piece IMO either unless the stock is restored or replaced. IOW it has the shallow marks from bumping/rubbing sidearms sometimes and a couple of gouges near the toe on one side from a bad fall on a rock slide that removed wood. As is for hunting more than for collecting I would think.
Because all of those I owned appeared to be exactly the same config as this one except for different cartridges, it seemed reasonable to me that at least 4 dealers, including two large well establish gun shops I dealt with often for many years would call and sell all of them as R's if in fact they were ST's or PL's. Especially since they were all bought/traded for new in their original factory boxes that would have had not only the serial number but also the model designation on them, plus probably on their invoices. It being possibility that they may have ALL been wrong did not even occur to me.
Like all the others, this 270 did not come with factory rings nor factory open sights, does use aftermarket scope bases and not integrated rings, does not have D&T for open sights. It has a 22" barrel of unknown MFG (it is hand stamped, but not a mark that means anything to me or even if it has anything to do with who made the barrel). Like with the others I did scope, I had the dealer I got this one from install the base and rings that I paid extra for... none of them with Redfield, probably all with Leupold same as this one.
So from your above it sounds like at least this one is a PL, maybe they all were. If not? With its vintage (71-226XX) any idea of what barrel it has? I've seen Douglas, Wilson, others claimed on the earlier 77's IOW but not with authority and not what years possibly if even true. I've also seen that some also felt the early 77's didn't shoot very well. This one did, very well even with factory ammo (Federal Premium 130's and 150's in the 70's I still have some of), so whatever the barrel is it was a great shooter even before I later put a target trigger in it thiniing I might get some use out of it after I stopped hunting big game P&V hunting - but never did (I still have the original tigger for it).
As far as value one model verses another doesn't really matter that much to me. It was for hunting (stock shows it although overall and all the metal is in great condition), it did it well for me, didn't get shot all that much because I was a handgun hunter first, and never will get shot again by me. But as a rifle that was used for a few years hiking in the high Rockies it is not really a collectors piece IMO either unless the stock is restored or replaced. IOW it has the shallow marks from bumping/rubbing sidearms sometimes and a couple of gouges near the toe on one side from a bad fall on a rock slide that removed wood. As is for hunting more than for collecting I would think.
picketpin
Buckeye
Early #s and 77s were shipped with Douglas Match grade barrels. The change over to Wilson tok place by about mid 1972. Like most Ruger things the introductions.faze out took place over a period of time and there is no set serial number where you can say it is or isn't.
The re is also nothing on the barrel that tells you one way or the other and no easy wat to tell.
I did have my sister who used to run the state lab run known samples (Re threaded and re-crowned) Douglas and Wilson barrels an there is a difference in the chemical make of each and IF you happen to have a gas chromatigraph you can tell but that's a bit extreme. ;-)
I own Ruger rifles with Douglas, Wilson and Ruger barrels. IThere were some issues with SOME early 77s in specific cartridges. The big issue was that some (&x57 in particular) had very long throats and it was impossible to load mid to light weight bullets anywhere near the lands and thus accuracy suffered.
I think what you ran into is the dealers using 77R as a generic model # for all 77 bolt guns. They don't know or care whether a rifle is an ST or PL or Rs I've seen all, including "V" listed for sale as 77Rs. Of course I have also seen both 77s and #1s listed for sale as "Varmint" models only to find they are standard #1"B" or 77s that happen to be chambered in 22-250 or maybe 220 Swift. Thus the seller/dealer calls them a "Varmint" model. ;-)
You mention there is nothing on the barrel to indicate anything. My question is, is the barrel factory roll marked as a Ruger barrel with the RP proof mark over the chamber??
Ross
The re is also nothing on the barrel that tells you one way or the other and no easy wat to tell.
I did have my sister who used to run the state lab run known samples (Re threaded and re-crowned) Douglas and Wilson barrels an there is a difference in the chemical make of each and IF you happen to have a gas chromatigraph you can tell but that's a bit extreme. ;-)
I own Ruger rifles with Douglas, Wilson and Ruger barrels. IThere were some issues with SOME early 77s in specific cartridges. The big issue was that some (&x57 in particular) had very long throats and it was impossible to load mid to light weight bullets anywhere near the lands and thus accuracy suffered.
I think what you ran into is the dealers using 77R as a generic model # for all 77 bolt guns. They don't know or care whether a rifle is an ST or PL or Rs I've seen all, including "V" listed for sale as 77Rs. Of course I have also seen both 77s and #1s listed for sale as "Varmint" models only to find they are standard #1"B" or 77s that happen to be chambered in 22-250 or maybe 220 Swift. Thus the seller/dealer calls them a "Varmint" model. ;-)
You mention there is nothing on the barrel to indicate anything. My question is, is the barrel factory roll marked as a Ruger barrel with the RP proof mark over the chamber??
Ross
Ladobe
Single-Sixer
Sorry, double post...
Ladobe
Single-Sixer
Ross,
Thanks for the additional info. This 270 is well after the time frame you mentioned for the change from Douglas to Wilson, 2+years after it's approximate start (I have no idea when they changed again to their own barrels). This barrel is roll marked STURM, RUGER & CO. INC., SOUTHPORT, CONN. U.S.A. The "RP" left top on the barrels chamber (looks stamped, not roll marked) I just assumed was a proof mark that did not indicate barrel marker (a backwards R sharing the verticle line as a forward P in an almost complete "C") and with .270 WIN. below it. I assumed that any barrel brand could have been proofed or set out to be proofed by Ruger, so maybe it was not an indication of who made the barrel. Obviously not a good idea to assume anything as you've proved on the 77's, and I do know better. I just took the easy path as it really didn't matter that much to me.
Off topic to expand on assumptions...
I've been down this Douglas custom barrel thing before with another mid 70's firearm that I pretty much know all there is to be known about them, and do have proof to back it up from as close to the horses mouth as you can get considering he is long dead. The earliest ones were always said to have Douglas barrels by the hoards, roll stamped in a way to separate the barrels themselves from later production that also had other design changes that overlapped the first of them until in stock parts were used up. They demanded higher prices because they really were all exceptional tack drivers as much as the Douglas barrel thing. Some said Shilen barrels for the same reason, with various proof marks being suggested that i never saw for whatever they wanted to believe there's was. I have one of the eariest and didn't buy into any of it as it was all heresay with no proof known or available from the company that marketed them. So I took on the challenge and eventually it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The biggest break with the help of a gent found that was "there at ground zero" from before day one as a friend, neighbor and in a way smithing student who hung out in the shop of the firearms designer who built the prototype in his home shop. The same gent who also did the inplant training of building the production barrels overseas for the company that put their name on them and sold them. So it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that the prototype actually had a Douglas barrel, and that up to 2-3 others were also built custom in his home shop with high end wood for family/friends that may have also had Douglas barrels. But NOT any of those made for commercial sale had them that the hoards all owned. Was fun to finally run it down after so long trying while building a data base on serial numbers and variations not assembled as a record before. The serial only as an approximate year thing - I only accepted those with a sales reciept in hand to verify when they were sold, but still only as approximate because it being unknown how long they had sat in stock before the sale. A pattern finally started to come together as I got more accepted for inclusion though, so a generalization of approximately when made for some but not all serial ranges. Some clowns even insisted they knew for positive that they theirs was bought on such and such date but didn't have a receipt that were up to well over a decade before the prototype was made, and got pretty rude when corrected. Even after all that folks still believe what they want to believe far more than the facts as now knowN as far as they go. To this day those from the very short era thought to have custom DOUGLAS barrels still do bring much higher prices. The later models were also excellent shooters, not quite as good as the first, so maybe the earliest do warrant a little more value, but not due to the false claims that still haunt them. Some ACE's are not retrainable, have closed minds IOW. At the same time I also cleared up the facts on another model from this company that almost nothing was known about, the best of its kind and only available for a very short time. I had one, so I traced this latest version back through its short run in European matches and the designs decades of dominance in them made by a German maker to over 160 years back to its very begining as a very high end custom design from its designer's shop in Switzerland (that is stil in business). By far the most valuable for resale I ever owed from this mostly entry level company. sold for a very high price for this company when new, very few were ever made and they were still up to the European matches that gave them their value to the right person. In my case I found an gent in OZ that had competed with them before and that lead to a gent that wanted it.
I have a custom Sako L461 that has a Douglas barrel. I know the gent personally who had it built by Sako in their custom shop long ago for the truing, custom higher end stock and barrel, so don't question the barrel. Doesn't matter to me either way though, its other attributes make it special enough to me.
Thanks for the additional info. This 270 is well after the time frame you mentioned for the change from Douglas to Wilson, 2+years after it's approximate start (I have no idea when they changed again to their own barrels). This barrel is roll marked STURM, RUGER & CO. INC., SOUTHPORT, CONN. U.S.A. The "RP" left top on the barrels chamber (looks stamped, not roll marked) I just assumed was a proof mark that did not indicate barrel marker (a backwards R sharing the verticle line as a forward P in an almost complete "C") and with .270 WIN. below it. I assumed that any barrel brand could have been proofed or set out to be proofed by Ruger, so maybe it was not an indication of who made the barrel. Obviously not a good idea to assume anything as you've proved on the 77's, and I do know better. I just took the easy path as it really didn't matter that much to me.
Off topic to expand on assumptions...
I've been down this Douglas custom barrel thing before with another mid 70's firearm that I pretty much know all there is to be known about them, and do have proof to back it up from as close to the horses mouth as you can get considering he is long dead. The earliest ones were always said to have Douglas barrels by the hoards, roll stamped in a way to separate the barrels themselves from later production that also had other design changes that overlapped the first of them until in stock parts were used up. They demanded higher prices because they really were all exceptional tack drivers as much as the Douglas barrel thing. Some said Shilen barrels for the same reason, with various proof marks being suggested that i never saw for whatever they wanted to believe there's was. I have one of the eariest and didn't buy into any of it as it was all heresay with no proof known or available from the company that marketed them. So I took on the challenge and eventually it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The biggest break with the help of a gent found that was "there at ground zero" from before day one as a friend, neighbor and in a way smithing student who hung out in the shop of the firearms designer who built the prototype in his home shop. The same gent who also did the inplant training of building the production barrels overseas for the company that put their name on them and sold them. So it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that the prototype actually had a Douglas barrel, and that up to 2-3 others were also built custom in his home shop with high end wood for family/friends that may have also had Douglas barrels. But NOT any of those made for commercial sale had them that the hoards all owned. Was fun to finally run it down after so long trying while building a data base on serial numbers and variations not assembled as a record before. The serial only as an approximate year thing - I only accepted those with a sales reciept in hand to verify when they were sold, but still only as approximate because it being unknown how long they had sat in stock before the sale. A pattern finally started to come together as I got more accepted for inclusion though, so a generalization of approximately when made for some but not all serial ranges. Some clowns even insisted they knew for positive that they theirs was bought on such and such date but didn't have a receipt that were up to well over a decade before the prototype was made, and got pretty rude when corrected. Even after all that folks still believe what they want to believe far more than the facts as now knowN as far as they go. To this day those from the very short era thought to have custom DOUGLAS barrels still do bring much higher prices. The later models were also excellent shooters, not quite as good as the first, so maybe the earliest do warrant a little more value, but not due to the false claims that still haunt them. Some ACE's are not retrainable, have closed minds IOW. At the same time I also cleared up the facts on another model from this company that almost nothing was known about, the best of its kind and only available for a very short time. I had one, so I traced this latest version back through its short run in European matches and the designs decades of dominance in them made by a German maker to over 160 years back to its very begining as a very high end custom design from its designer's shop in Switzerland (that is stil in business). By far the most valuable for resale I ever owed from this mostly entry level company. sold for a very high price for this company when new, very few were ever made and they were still up to the European matches that gave them their value to the right person. In my case I found an gent in OZ that had competed with them before and that lead to a gent that wanted it.
I have a custom Sako L461 that has a Douglas barrel. I know the gent personally who had it built by Sako in their custom shop long ago for the truing, custom higher end stock and barrel, so don't question the barrel. Doesn't matter to me either way though, its other attributes make it special enough to me.
picketpin
Buckeye
Ruger started making their own barrels in 1991. Like all the changes they took place over a period of time till existing stocks were exhausted.
Ross
Ross
SHOOTER said:
The Ruger M77 is based (perhaps some would call it loosly) on the Mauser 98 rifle. A mauser 98 has the large ring up front where the extra metal is needed for the chamber area. The rear of the receiver is thinner (lighter) since the extra metal is not needed and would only add weight. I like the Ruger design, bought my first 77 this month and I like the Mauser'ish features. Mr. Ruger liked Oberndorf mausers and Mannlicher Schoenauers, as a result his rifles exhibit some of their design features. On My new 9.3x62 African: Bolt/extractor, stock, barrel mounted fron swivel and rear sight (sight more like a custom Mauser) like an Oberndorf. Front sight like a Mannlicher Schoenauer.
