New Ruger rifle barrels.

R

reynolds357

New member
Historically, I have not been a fan of Ruger. Here lately, my mind is changing. I bought my son an American stainless 7-08. We shot it 40 times over a few weeks. I cleaned it tonight and got almost no CU out of the barrel. That barrel looks as good as my Lilja bench rest barrels. I could not believe it. I had read Ruger had really stepped up their barrel making, but I just thought it was paid writers writing Bravo Sierra like they usually do. I wonder if Ruger barrels are now "that good" or if I just got the odd ball perfect one?
 
I can attest to Ruegers improvements. I have a Preciesion Rifle ( 6.5 Creedmoor) a American Predator in 6mm Creedmoor and the same 7mm08. All of them exhibit the same quality you describe and further more have far exceeded expectant life with 3600 rds through the 6.5 and still shooting as accurate as ever ( I don't push my handloads to bad and stick to slower/cooler powders) and my 6mm is about to hit 1k rds and has slowed down to my deer only rifle until I get my Grendel finished. The 7mm08 is my exploration into the cartridge and my backup or loaner rifle when anyone wants to join me at the range or hunt. I am pleased with the company and offerings and hope they continue.
 
This is good to know. I had a couple of Ruger 77 years ago that shot pretty bad. I would be hard pressed to get a 5 round group of 6 inches or less at 300 yards.

Yesterday I came across a Ruger American Predator in 6.5 Creedmoor. Comes with a 4-12 Vortex all set up for like $590 at a LGS..... If they are making good barrels and the american has a better trigger than the 77 used to then They are an excellent deal.
 
This is good to know. I had a couple of Ruger 77 years ago that shot pretty bad
Click to expand...
Ruger 77's have had 3 different barrel manufacturers over the years. Started out with Douglas then Wilson then Ruger itself. I'm pretty sure the Wilson years were the bad ones.
 
Ruger 77's have had 3 different barrel manufacturers over the years. Started out with Douglas then Wilson then Ruger itself. I'm pretty sure the Wilson years were the bad ones.
Click to expand...
I don't know, but I had several of the bad ones. I sold all of them except a 77 7x57. It is minute of broad side of a barn. The only reason I have not re barreled it is so I could show some of the fanboys how terrible Ruger was.
I guess I will eventually make it a 257 Roberts.
 
I've never owned a centerfire Ruger that couldn't be brought to MOA with the right ammo selection. I can't say exactly how many that is, but it's around 10 at least, production ranging from the mid 70s to the present.
 
Ruger barrels have been acceptable since the 1990's when they started making their own. Prior to that they purchased barrels from whoever got the low bid. They built the rest of the gun and assembled them. Accuracy was all over the place. Some were pretty good, others pretty bad.

The biggest difference in the Americans accuracy isn't the barrels but the action design. The older 77 action is as rugged and dependable as any rifle ever made. But the design does not lend it self to optimum accuracy.

When Ruger designed the American action they didn't do anything new, but borrowed the best accuracy ideas from everyone else and incorporated it all in one rifle. The closed top action is stiffer, as is the huge bolt and 3 locking lugs. Making rifle that used detachable bottom metal did away with the internal magazine which can cause accuracy problems and the V block bedding system eliminates the need for a stiff stock that needs to be bedded carefully. The trigger design on the 77 is made for rugged dependability, the one on the American is a target style trigger.

They ain't pretty, but they do shoot.
 
I had a Ruger stainless 243 that only shot so-so. One year around 1998 when I went for a hunt in South Africa, my friend there wanted me to bring him a stainless 270 with the boat paddle stock. Just happened to find one for a good price at a store going out of business, took it to the range to sight it in. Well that Ruger shot consistent 1/2 moa groups or better with the cheapest Federal ammo I could find. Repeatedly, I thought it was a fluke at first. Had a nice trigger as well.

So I went back to the store and bought another one, that one went to Africa. :D
 
I bought a Hawkeye Predator in 204 Ruger around 2013. It was a tack driver. Period. I sold it a while back but over the 5 years I owned it, many prairie rats bit the dust as a result of 39 gr Blitz Kings disintegrating them.
 
In the "old days". Ruger barrels were a crap shoot. One would shoot great, the next would be miserably inaccurate. In the 70s and 80s, they were using seconds from a major barrel maker for their factory barrels. They were OK for hunting with, but 2 MOA was common, and considering that Ruger was at the lower end of hunting rifles price-wise, it was OK. In the early 1990s, Ruger started hammer forging barrels, and I had a couple of them that were absolutely fantastic shooters. One in particular, a M77 Target/Varmint in 243 was a 5/16" shooter at 100, better than my Remington or Mauser varmint rifles. So when people tell me how bad Ruger rifles shoot, I ask them if they have owned one made after 1990. Sometimes they'll admit they have never owned a Ruger, they "just heard" they don't shoot well. Well, time to put that old story to bed.
 
barrels

Agree with all stated previously. I had a pal back in the late '70's that had a new Ruger 77, it was his pride and joy, but the thing would not group worth a hoot. His old Savage 170 would shoot tighter groups at 100 than the new M77 in '06!

Conversely, I bought a 77V in 22-250 in the same era, and that rifle will shoot bugholes with near anything you feed it, provided you don't get to heavy with the bullet weights. In fact, I have not heard from anybody with a 77V, in any caliber, that their rifle was not a shooter. Seems like I read somewhere that Ruger paid more attention to the 77V barrels at the time.

More recently, I acquired a M77MK-II , in 7.62x39mm. This was one of the boatpaddle stocked rifles, with a slender, 20" barrel. That little rifle will plunk .308 dia slugs into useable groups or 1.5" or so, but will stack .310 slugs like you wouldn't believe. Seated out as far as the magazine will allow, well ahead of the crimp, Hornady .310 SST's are amazing.
 
I bought a Ruger 77 MK11 that left the factory in 1991 in .308, out of a collection. It looked as new. I coulden't hold a 2 1/2 inch group at a hundred with it on a good day, trying 5 different bullets and 3 different powders. I called Ruger customer Service and complained. After some conversation they wanted the serial number and said OHHH, they'd take it back for testing. They sent me a shipping label to return it. After less than a week they called and said they would re barrel the rifle.. Got it back in about 3 weeks and now it groups 1 1/2 or better. NO CHARGE, how is that for customer service ???
 
I have a 77V, bought used in the early 80’s. Research back then suggested that Shilen supplied many (if not all) of the 77V barrels. Man, that rifle would shoot tiny groups. The previous owner had the barrel shortened to 20 inches so that he could keep it on his truck dashboard. Who ever heard of a 220 Swift with a 20 inch bull barrel. Well, I liked it so much that the second barrel is also 20 inches.

And I’ve read that many Ruger 77s had very poor accuracy. Maybe so, but I never owned or shot one of those. I handloaded for all of mine and the family 77s, and found great loads for all of them.
 
My 77V .22-250 is accurate, the .243 I traded for it, less so, but the guy wanted to standardize on one caliber, so he got it.

One friend's 7x57 was dismal, even after two returns. It now does very well with a .280 Douglas barrel. He also reports that a non magnum bullet will not bounce off an elk.

Another guy here got a super accurate Swift. When he saw how accurate it was, he quit shooting varmints with it and saved the barrel for stock class benchrest matches. Cash prizes paid back several times the rifle's cost, while the barrel lasted.
 
Ruger American barrels that I have had direct experience with have lived up to the 'hype'. They're good.

I have a little less experience with current 77 Mk II / Hawkeye barrels, but my brothers have been quite happy with theirs (.223 Rem [x2 or x3?] / .358 Win / .375 Ruger).

Hammer forged M77 Mk II barrels have been pretty good for me, too.

Older barrels... A bit of a crap shoot.

Ruger barrel chronology copied from an older post of mine:
(Minor editing done to correct grammar and clarify muddy points.)
Very basic breakdown of Ruger barrels:

Douglas from '67-'73
Wilson from '73-'91
Ruger hammer-forged from '91-Current
Other contracts filled in where needed, if Wilson or Douglas couldn't meet demand.

The Wilson years earned a reputation for being all over the map for 'accuracy' and quality.
Wilson barrels, however, were only in use for a very short time in early production 77 Mk IIs. Their bad reputation was earned on the 77 'tang-safety'.

Once Ruger went to in-house production, quality only got better as time passed.

So, if you want to make sure you have the best odds at getting a good barrel, make sure it's a '92+ Mk II.


But, as ratshooter mentioned, not all of the barrels from 'bad' years were actually 'bad', either.
As I added in a previous discussion about 'tang-safety' vs Mk II Ruger 77s...
I have a 78 prefix tang-safety 77V that was originally chambered for .220 Swift. I have no idea whose barrel it was, but it shot like a dream (it was of ~1983 production, when several additional contractors are said to have supplied barrels). And that barrel, 4,500+ rounds later, is still going strong on another 78-prefix 77V tang-safety, in the hands of a predator control contractor in Montana.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hmmm, makes me wonder what year mine were made.
77 MKII in 257 Roberts. Fantastic!
77 MKII in 280 Rem. Shoots acceptable. I do notice a slight bulge in the side of the casing after ejecting. About 1/4" up from the extractor groove.
Guessing old enough they would say, nice try. I bought both previously enjoyed.
 
Prior to that they purchased barrels from whoever got the low bid.
Click to expand...

In the 70s and 80s, they were using seconds from a major barrel maker for their factory barrels.
Click to expand...

I've heard this information for many years now and, though I'm not necessarily disputing its veracity, I am curious as to the source of the claim and if it can be supported with empirical evidence. Anybody know for sure?
 
I was a Ruger cheerleader from back in 60s. Had all their SAs and bought 44carbind, 10/22
and 77 soon as they hit market. The 77 is 270win and is a tack driver, Douglas barrel I was told. About 1975 I started a shop and begin getting complaints on 77s some time before 80.
257s & 30/06 brought the most complaints. I quit buying SAs when new models came out and 77s to. Continued #1s, #3s and 10/22s. The last new Ruger 77/22 when 1st out. That
was a gift. I wouldn't have bought it but turns out it's an exceptional 22. By 90s I was soured on Rugers in general. When they put plastic in 10/22s I quit them too. Then I scoped and sighted in several 77/44s and a couple 77/357s all good shooters. I also did same with
several Ruger American in different calibers and the American 22. To me they are ugly but
shoot very well. I did three 22/250s all with low end glass and factory ammo. All did 1" at
100. A 22/250 to me is one of the most finicky cartridges their is in sporter weight barrels.
If a model does well with this cartridge it's a good indicator they are making good barrels.
That reminds me I sold a new 77 ultra light with pencil barrel 22/250. Guy put 3x9 Leupold on it for coyote. This would have been in 80s. Worst shooting rifle I ever shot. It was lucky to hold 8" at 100yds. Now I would buy Ruger BAs. I belive the troubles were all in the barrels during a period. I don't know the particulars of their barrel suppliers. Maybe they bought different bores from different suppliers. Those earl 77s were about as close to Pre 64 m70s for fit and finish and accuracy you could buy off the rack. A lot of Winchester guys went Ruger 77 when Win went under and they couldn't stomach a 700 Rem.
 
Who made what?

We missed the message on Wilson barrels. During this time there was a bunch of gun swapping going on. The Rugers we had were good shooters. My old 220 Swift was an exceptional rifle. Asking for empirical data on these barrels is reasonable but impossible. I had asked on another forum about breaks between Douglas barrels and the Wilson. One post summed it up. Do you think Ruger tossed all the Douglas barrels then turned to Wilson. I have seen claims of special proof marks for Douglas. For the most part information unsupported. Unsupported does not mean untrue. It means data is unsupported. From my experience the vast majority of Ruger's gave very good to excellent accuracy. Much of this bad barrel stuff as grown greatly on the web. :eek:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top