Would a ruger 77/44 be able to take hotter loads?
- Thread starter micksis86
- Start date
- Status
Stupid is as Stupi does
Are we talking about exceeding published reloading data ? As that is never a good idea . There are many other factors that come into play , besides the strength of the firearm , when you exceed the parameters of any cartridge . I describe people that do this with one word , "STUPID" ! Your 77/44 will digest any factory load available for the .44 Mag. and any safely crafted handloads also !
Are we talking about exceeding published reloading data ? As that is never a good idea . There are many other factors that come into play , besides the strength of the firearm , when you exceed the parameters of any cartridge . I describe people that do this with one word , "STUPID" ! Your 77/44 will digest any factory load available for the .44 Mag. and any safely crafted handloads also !
Last edited:
I think the OP was asking the strength of the 77 vs. the 1894 not trying to turn it into a 458 win.
Yes the 77 is a stronger gun and you can build loads that surpass factory in weight and velocity and very much so in accuracy. The one I like loading for it is a very heavy 320 GR lead that is a deer’s worse nightmare inside of 75 yards.
Another is a light 180 GR lead bullet that I have running to 1500 FPS and will hold a 3 inch group at 100 yards.
That's the one thing that makes the gun so interesting for me. Pistol caliber rifles will never meet the energy or accuracy of a high power rifle but they will come close. They are also easier to load for and are a lot more forgiving.
So go ahead and push the 77 to the documented max (in slow steps) but with a lot of experience with one (more than 2 years) the gun does not like maxed out loads.
For best accuracy mine has been 80 to 85% of max pulls the best accuracy and that includes 7 different lead bullets, >5 Jacketed and one plated.
By the way, you’re not stupid asking this question.
Yes the 77 is a stronger gun and you can build loads that surpass factory in weight and velocity and very much so in accuracy. The one I like loading for it is a very heavy 320 GR lead that is a deer’s worse nightmare inside of 75 yards.
Another is a light 180 GR lead bullet that I have running to 1500 FPS and will hold a 3 inch group at 100 yards.
That's the one thing that makes the gun so interesting for me. Pistol caliber rifles will never meet the energy or accuracy of a high power rifle but they will come close. They are also easier to load for and are a lot more forgiving.
So go ahead and push the 77 to the documented max (in slow steps) but with a lot of experience with one (more than 2 years) the gun does not like maxed out loads.
For best accuracy mine has been 80 to 85% of max pulls the best accuracy and that includes 7 different lead bullets, >5 Jacketed and one plated.
By the way, you’re not stupid asking this question.
Thanks Ozzieman that's exactly what i was talking about.
I have also found with every cartridge I've loaded for that about 80% of max load is the sweet spot.
I've been reloading for 5 years and i'm a responsible and safe re loader I would never exceed published maximum loads..
I have also found with every cartridge I've loaded for that about 80% of max load is the sweet spot.
I've been reloading for 5 years and i'm a responsible and safe re loader I would never exceed published maximum loads..
newfrontier45
Moderator
I'd like to know exactly what these statements are based on. Because it sounds like dangerous assumptions and wishful thinking to me.
The Marlin 1894 is a stronger gun than a Ruger single action. The modern 1892 is stronger still. This much is proven. How anyone thinks a boltgun designed around the .22LR and .22Mag is stronger is beyond me. I'm not saying it is or isn't, I would just like to know what information these statements are based upon.
I guess I have just never seen all the evidence of the strength of the Marlins or 92's, but I would consider the bolt actions as very strong. For one thing, the bolt gun can and should be set up with a tighter headspace than the lever actions. The levers require a looser headspace to operate efficiently as they lack the camming action of a bolt. A lever such as the Browning BLR can tolerate higher pressures than the other models without the rotating bolts.
An action should not be subjected to ammo that is higher pressure than SAMMI specs anyway as it is not safe...period... so the whole discussion is sort of a non issue in my opinion.
An action should not be subjected to ammo that is higher pressure than SAMMI specs anyway as it is not safe...period... so the whole discussion is sort of a non issue in my opinion.
newfrontier45
Moderator
It's built on the 77/22 Hornet receiver, which is based on the rimfire receiver. Unless I'm mistaken, they're all the same overall size. If it was a standard 77 receiver then we would have a lot more to base an educated guess on.
I'd like to know exactly what these statements are based on.
Experience with both and having the lever action become loose within 2000 rounds. And the Ruger having larger locking lugs and 3 of them.
And if you read my input instead of jumping to conclusions you would have seen that I said that it will take So go ahead and push the 77 to the documented max (in slow steps)
So if you think that this is dangerous then I would like to know what your statements are based on.
Experience with both and having the lever action become loose within 2000 rounds. And the Ruger having larger locking lugs and 3 of them.
And if you read my input instead of jumping to conclusions you would have seen that I said that it will take So go ahead and push the 77 to the documented max (in slow steps)
So if you think that this is dangerous then I would like to know what your statements are based on.
Let’s look at some bolts.
The one on the left is smaller than the middle one but the one on the far right has larger lugs but the bolt lug is larger on the middle one.
So my guess is that none of the 3 is strong enough to take heavy loads within book numbers of any type.
Funny that the smallest one is an Ishapore 308 which is bassed on the SMLE Mk3, the one on the right is an 03A3 and the weak one in the middle is a gun based on the 22.
Guess I’m wrong and I apologize.
The one on the left is smaller than the middle one but the one on the far right has larger lugs but the bolt lug is larger on the middle one.
So my guess is that none of the 3 is strong enough to take heavy loads within book numbers of any type.
Funny that the smallest one is an Ishapore 308 which is bassed on the SMLE Mk3, the one on the right is an 03A3 and the weak one in the middle is a gun based on the 22.
Guess I’m wrong and I apologize.
Attachments
Last edited:
newfrontier45
Moderator
If a Marlin 1894 shook itself loose in 2000rds there was something wrong with it.
As I suspected, you're making assumptions and apparently uneducated guesses. Fact is, we do not know how strong the Ruger 77/44 is and can make no assumptions. We KNOW that the Marlin is good to 40,000psi and the modern 1892 is good to 50,000psi when chambered in .45Colt. We do NOT know how strong the Ruger is. I've spoken at great length with Mic McPherson, who converts these guns to .475Linebaugh, .50AE and .440CorBon and has probably forgotten more about leverguns than most here will ever know. That is the source of my information. Not guesswork.
I didn't jump to any conclusions, I'm responding to the words on the screen. Any of the mentioned guns are plenty strong enough for the chambering in question.
As I suspected, you're making assumptions and apparently uneducated guesses. Fact is, we do not know how strong the Ruger 77/44 is and can make no assumptions. We KNOW that the Marlin is good to 40,000psi and the modern 1892 is good to 50,000psi when chambered in .45Colt. We do NOT know how strong the Ruger is. I've spoken at great length with Mic McPherson, who converts these guns to .475Linebaugh, .50AE and .440CorBon and has probably forgotten more about leverguns than most here will ever know. That is the source of my information. Not guesswork.
I didn't jump to any conclusions, I'm responding to the words on the screen. Any of the mentioned guns are plenty strong enough for the chambering in question.
newfrontier45
Moderator
That's a very simplistic, dangerous and inaccurate generalization. Particularly considering we're talking about a boltgun designed around rimfire cartridges. There are plenty of leverguns that are stronger than 'some' bolt guns. Do you think a Savage 340 is stronger than a BLR, Winchester 1895 or 1886, just because it's a boltgun? Uh, no. What about the Krag? There are also plenty of early boltguns that are not as strong as comparable levers. The fact that I have to tell you this says a lot about your firearms knowledge.
I deal in facts, not speculation and uneducated guesswork. The fact is, we do not have any idea just how strong the 77/44 is. Period. I'm not saying it is or isn't stronger than the guns in question, I'm saying it is an unknown. You are certainly free to assume whatever you want but if you state your unsubstantiated opinion as fact, you will be called on it. Bolts don't contain pressure. Chambers contain pressure. The action/bolt needs to be only strong enough to withstand the backthrust.
Unlike the Ruger model 77 rifle, the Ruger model 77/44 action locks in the rear of the receiver like its .22 caliber roots.
The Winchester model 43 rifle is also a rear locking action with .22 long rifle roots. i've had numerous Winchester model 43 guns. IME: Those chambered for .25-20 and .32-20 never develop headspace problems. Winchester model 43 guns in calibers .22 Hornet and .218 Bee often have headspace issues.
How will the Ruger model 77/44 action hold up under heavy .44 magnum loads? Time will tell.
http://stevespages.com/ipb-ruger-7744.html
The Winchester model 43 rifle is also a rear locking action with .22 long rifle roots. i've had numerous Winchester model 43 guns. IME: Those chambered for .25-20 and .32-20 never develop headspace problems. Winchester model 43 guns in calibers .22 Hornet and .218 Bee often have headspace issues.
How will the Ruger model 77/44 action hold up under heavy .44 magnum loads? Time will tell.
http://stevespages.com/ipb-ruger-7744.html
If it is a rear locking mechanism than I would say it is in the same class as a Marlin M1894.
There are more considerations, barrel thickness at the chamber. The barrel carries far more load, due to surface area of the case, than the bolt lugs.
Also how well the case head is supported. More case head support the "stronger" the action as brass is the weakest link in the system.
You can experiment and compare. At some point either action is going to experience sticky extraction and the most flexible action is going to be the "weakest".
There are more considerations, barrel thickness at the chamber. The barrel carries far more load, due to surface area of the case, than the bolt lugs.
Also how well the case head is supported. More case head support the "stronger" the action as brass is the weakest link in the system.
You can experiment and compare. At some point either action is going to experience sticky extraction and the most flexible action is going to be the "weakest".
I want to apologize to every one for helping this get out of hand. I have come to the conclusion that I am wrong about the 7744 and its strength (since I have no proof) of being able to shoot standard book levels of 44 magnum or the quality of Ruger rifles.
So I am going to retire it to the safe since I have learnt that it’s not.
And go back to my Marlin which I didn’t say was shot loose but the lock is loose.
So can we please get back to the question that the OP asked and quit trying outdo undo each other?
Newfrontier45, I had no idea it was based on the 22 which I just looked up and found you were right. I just thought that it was another well designed Ruger that would take anything that was considered a safe load.
So I am going to retire it to the safe since I have learnt that it’s not.
And go back to my Marlin which I didn’t say was shot loose but the lock is loose.
So can we please get back to the question that the OP asked and quit trying outdo undo each other?
Newfrontier45, I had no idea it was based on the 22 which I just looked up and found you were right. I just thought that it was another well designed Ruger that would take anything that was considered a safe load.
newfrontier45
Moderator
Read it again, that is NOT the point of contention. No one argued that it won't live on a steady diet of standard pressure loads. That has never been in question.
The point of contention is the statement that it is unequivocally stronger than any levergun. When in fact, we have absolutely no idea just how strong they are.
You might consider for a moment that some folks actually know a thing or two about this stuff, rather than assuming it's wrong because it conflicts with your perception of reality.
- Status