Ruger M77 action vs. true Mauser action

[Swampman]

I believe the M77 uses a spring loaded plunger ejector....I could be wrong.  Are there any other differences?  A friend ask me and I couldn't remember off the top of my head.

[kyelkhunter3006]

The original M77 was a plunger ejector, it was also a push feed action with a large claw extractor.  The Mark II rifles are true controlled round feed guns and also have a blade ejector like the Mauser.

[mcwoodduck]

Looking at the bolts in mine it looks like a mixing of a Mauser and a Remington 700.  i have two early models with the tang safety.
It is a push feed but has the positive extraction claw like a mauser.
If I remember right there is a positive ejector like a mauser as well as the spring plunger like the Rem.

[oldelkhunter]

Original RUger had a PF action and a button ejector. The new model is CRF with a blade ejector. The noticeable difference is the recoil lug which is angled on the Ruger and of course the cast construction vs machined construction of the Mauser. Ruger has a 3 position safety that is not part of the bolt shroud like a MOdel 70, Mauser has a wing safety mounted on the bolt shroud. They are both among the most rugged designs ever made.

[Mr. Joe]

The ejector was machined into the receiver on the k98, on the ruger, its a pivoting type.  The Ruger MKII also has integral scope mounts.  It is in my opinion, that the 77MKII action is the finest rendition of the k98 a hunter can hope to have...and yes i have a pre 64 winchester.  The only problem with the MKII is the trigger.  It is total crap.  It can be fixed easily with polishing or a drop in, but in factory guise, its one of the worse on the market.

But Yes, the original 77 was a push feed with claw extractor, plunger garand type ejector, and tang saftey.  They were also available without the integral scope mounts.

[mcwoodduck]

On the 91-98 series the ejector was not machined in but was in the bolt release.  If you take one apart you will see that there is an extended piece of metel in it.  This way it can be replaced.  As almost anyone here can attest a soldier can break thinks that were thought to be unbreakable and if it were milled in .... 
Also not all of the M77's have molded scope ring slots.  I have a M77-RL that is set up to take weaver mounts.

[kyelkhunter3006]

I think that the integral mounts were introduced with the MKII upgrades.  The original M77 didn't have them.

[Coyote Hunter]

I think that the integral mounts were introduced with the MKII upgrades.  The original M77 didn't have them.

Not sure when Ruger introduced the integral mounts but all three of my original M77's have them, as do my two M77 MKII's.

[Swampman]

I seem to remember them offering both styles when I was thinking about buying one in the late 1970s.

[mcwoodduck]

For some reason they made the RL model that was drilled and tapped to take weaver mounts.  
Didn't know till I got one a little while ago.
Would be great if you only wanted iron sights .

[deltecs]

I think that the integral mounts were introduced with the MKII upgrades.  The original M77 didn't have them.

Not correct.  Most of the later Mark I Rugers had the integral bases machined in the receiver.  And not all Mark II's were controlled round feed.  The early skeleton stock Rugers look like they are controlled round feed but if one looks at the action when operated will find out that some of the early ones were push feed until the extractor hooked on closing the bolt.  When the bolt was withdrawn fully to the rear, the Mauser type ejector threw the spent shell.  It was another transition from the Mark I push feeds to the controlled round feeds of the Mark II's.

[Siskiyou]

I have a M77, tang safety Ruger.  It is the nosiest bolt-action rifle I have had.  The only rifle I have that makes more noise is the M760 Remington.

Slipping a round into the chamber and quietly closing the bolt is not in the cards.  Maybe that way to remind me to wear hearing protection.