Author Topic: Hogue Over molded stocks for ruger MkII 77 (Read 1264 times)

Thebear_78 · « **on:** February 12, 2005, 02:43:52 PM »

I just picked up one of the Hogue overmolded synthetic stocks for my Ruger 77 MkII. It was one of the few aftermarket stocks I could find for the MkII Rugers. I had a 35 whelen with the old style synthetic stocks, the skeletonized hard plastick ones. Not only was the old stock UGLY but it was also fairly uncomfortable. The new Hogue is 100% better in the comfort department. I can't wait to take it out to the range and see if it feels any different. I imagine that it is going to be a heck of a lot more comfortable to shoot. So far I would recommend it to anyone with the older style stock that doesn't really like it.

Omaha-BeenGlockin · « **Reply #1 on:** February 16, 2005, 05:51:39 AM »

Have a range report yet???

Thebear_78 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 17, 2005, 09:22:42 PM »

Shot it the other day. Accuracy wasn't any better or worse. Still shot the same groups that I did with the old style stock. One thing I did notice is that recoil seemed much more manageable. The Hogue stock really soaked up a lot of that recoil. Its a 100% improvement over the old style synthetic stocks.

doorgunner · « **Reply #3 on:** February 18, 2005, 03:44:57 AM »

Just out of curiosity, did you buy the pillar bed or full length bedding block version? Also, did your barrel free float when you installed the barreled action?

Thebear_78 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 18, 2005, 09:51:35 AM »

It is the pillar bedded one. The barrel was free floated after installing the hogue stock but the stock. It is a vast improvement to the old skeletonized synthetic stocks.

45north · « **Reply #5 on:** March 07, 2005, 09:05:44 AM »

Hello Thebear_78,
Do you have plans for your old stock or would you like to sell it.
It's a little off topic, but I thought I would ask.
Thanks 45north

tatwell · « **Reply #6 on:** May 14, 2005, 10:19:42 AM »

Out of curiousity, what caliber is the Ruger that you put this stock on? I have a 338 that has the old style boat paddle stock-which is a killer on recoil- and am going to replace it. It seems that the Hogue is one of the few replacements that will work without alteration on the 338. I have to believe that any other stock would be better as far as recoil than what I have. Thanks.

Sorry, my error, I see that you have a 35 whelen. I just didnt read carefully, still would like to know how after shooting it more you feel about the recoil difference.

Omaha-BeenGlockin · « **Reply #7 on:** May 14, 2005, 06:50:59 PM »

I had a .30-06 with a skeleton stock------and then a .30-06 with brown laminate stock----HUGE difference in the recoil dept.

The skel stock would dig into my shoulder like a dull knife---the butt of the laminate stock had a much wider cross section---but was also heavier too.

I'm thinking Ruger went to the new style syn stock mainly for recoil management and not necessarily to cheapen things up.

The skel stock was very nice quality wise---but horrible in the recoil control. I'm not sure if I'd ever buy another MkII with a skel stock in a caliber greater than .25-06 or so.

tatwell · « **Reply #8 on:** May 20, 2005, 10:40:29 AM »

I agree with that sentiment, I'll never buy another Ruger with the skeleton stock either. Mine is a 338 and is the worst kicking rifle I have, and the worst I ever have had. I have had 375 h&h's and have a 458 now, neither of them hurt like the Ruger. I am looking at the Hogue stock also, or ordering the laminated one from Ruger. I have heard that the Hogue helps in the recoil department, but havent tried one myself. Then too, the temptation is great to sell or trade the Ruger and get another Winchester 375 or a CZ.