Ruger M77/357 - I want one

I can't really think of a use for this thing that something else wouldn't be better for but I still want one. don't know why but I don't really want a .357 mag levergun, yet at the same time I don't want the 77/44 and I do want a .44 mag lever action. :confused: however for the price it will be a while, if ever, before I get one.
 
yawn

NOw that Bill Sr. is gone, who is making such decisions at Ruger.

A .357 BOLT??? Bring back the 96 lever, put IT in .357, OK. (.44 lever while they're at it).

But a BOLT. Same class as the Judge revolvers. Likely they came out w/ 77/357 cause they can, affordably and turn a profit no doubt. Same frame, receiver, bolt as the other oddball in the M77/22 lineup the .44. But I'm bettng this is a rifle that will not sell, nobody's asked for, and marketed by the bean counters.

Ol Bill would have never built or sold it.
 
Many people are asking "Why?"

Here are the reasons:

1. Silencer host. 9mm cans are among the most common and work fine on .357 caliber rifles. Until now there have been no repeating rifles that are suppressor friendly. Lever guns are a royal PITA to thread as the magazine tube must often be shortened. 9mm suppressor owners are going nuts over the 77/357. Ruger is going to sell a boatload of these rifles to those people who are going to have them threaded. Ruger should have just come out with a version threaded in 1/2x28. They are tapping a small, but growing, market and right now they are the only game in town.

2. Lever guns are somewhat fussy about OAL and bullet shape, the Rugers are much less fussy.

3. Hunting regulations. In most states it is illegal to have a gun in a vehicle with rounds in the magazine. (Not in my state of ND:cool: ) Quite a few people hunt by walking around an area for a while, getting back into their vehicle, and driving to another area to repeat. If you are hunting with a lever rifle you have to unload and reload the entire magazine every time you get out of the vehicle. With this you just have to drop the mag and clear the chamber.

4. Bolts tend to be much simpler mechanically and maintenance wise than levers. This Ruger is being offered in stainless synthetic for a reason. I could see it as a popular boat gun.

So we will just have to see what the market says about this new gun. I think it will do well.
 
Can’t help you with the 44/357 but last year I worked up a load for a friend’s 77/44 and liked it so much that I purchased one for myself.
After shooting 300+ rounds through it my only negative comments are.
1. The magazine is too short for heavy 320 Gr bullets. You have to load them one at a time.
2. The bolt handle is too short. You can’t put your hand around it if you have a larger diameter scope on the gun. Your hand will hit the scope before you open it enough to cycle. You have to cycle the gun more with the tips of your fingers than the whole hand. Luckily the bolt is smooth enough (once its broken in) that it’s not that big of a problem. You just need to remember it.
Over all I am VERY glad I purchased the gun. It’s very much a fun range gun and 100 yard accuracy is good.
The following is some more that I and others have commented on the 77/44.
I think that the 357 could be a very good gun with the right bullet choice. But I have found that mine is MUCH better with handloads than factory.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=421367&highlight=77+44
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=426921&highlight=77+44
 
Last edited:
The bolt handle is too short. You can’t put your hand around it if you have a larger diameter scope on the gun. Your hand will hit the scope before you open it enough to cycle. You have to cycle the gun more with the tips of your fingers than the whole hand. Luckily the bolt is smooth enough (once its broken in) that it’s not that big of a problem. You just need to remember it.
Click to expand...

I'm still debating in my mind if I would put a scope on IF I ever got one. what would be really neat is if they made this into a lighter GSR-type with peep-sights, 16 inch barrel, and scout rail. then you could mount the optic forward and not worry about the bolt/scope clearance.
 
FINALLY!!! I havent been this excited about a gun since I bought my smith model 52!! I will be first in line for this carbine. I LOVE 38 / 357!!!!

-George
 
I know that the 3X9 Redfield that I put on mine is a bit much. But that was another experiment. I heard so many good things about the new Redfield’s that I wanted to try one and the 44/77 was the first gun I had handy and it comes with a very nice set of Ruger rings.
My only thought about a red dot is that it might end up a little high on the gun for some kind of rail to keep the top of the gun open so that rounds can eject cleanly.
I think that the range capability of the gun WOULD make a red dot a very good selection but personally I don’t like red dots forward on the gun which is where you would have to mount it.
Peep sights would be my choice. If someone made a rear that could mount on the rear cutout for the scope rings and do something with the front to match it could make a very nice combination. The sights that it comes with are really not that great. Usable out to 50/75 yards but the rear of so far forward that it’s hard to get a good sight picture.
It’s a great little gun but not perfect.
 
Last edited:
Dobe after seeing the video I think it would work.
I have one of the older Aimpoints on a Beretta Storm Carbine and I have had groups with the 9mm under 4 inches at 100 yards.
Aim point is a superior product, but I have not seen the newer ones.
 
I've already put my order in for a .45 Colt. That's one I'd buy. I'll still end up with the 77/357, but a 45 Colt would be fine.
 
The centerfire leverguns didn't sell like Ruger had hoped, they were dropped because people weren't buying them.
I don't think there's any chance of them returning in any caliber.
Denis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top