Barrel accuracy problems with Ruger guns?

[His lordship.]

I have been terrified of owning Ruger guns for years as I have heard about accuracy problems due to shoddy quality control, etc.  I have heard that they had their barrels made by an outside party back in the late 1980's to early 1990's, and went back in house for production due to exceptionally bad quality control issues.  

I bought a Mk.2 pistol in .22 rf in 1987 and it was very accurate.  I just purchased a 77/17 rimfire bolt action (.17 rimfire magnum) and while I only have about 25 rounds in it to start the break in period, and get the scope aligned, at the end of the shooting session it was showing some real good accuracy potential.  But, again it is a little early at this point to be sure.  I bought it to mount a large scope on a rimfire bolt action rifle and the massive stucture of Ruger guns was a first choice for this project.

I know from collecting British and Russian guns that in World War 2 the British used a 2 band (2 grooved rifling) to cut down on production time, and while you could hit a soldier at 100 yards, it would not be a good target gun.  The post war Enfield Mk. 4 produced used a 5 band (5 grooved) barrel and these are prized for their accuracy.  The AK-47 and SKS use a 4 band rifling, and yet they are ok in the accuracy dept, but not as good as my hunting guns with their 5 band rifling.

Are the complaints due to irregular quality control at the factory, or is it a sensitivity in barrel engineering issue?  I have heard other writers on Greybeard's forum say great things about sending their guns back to Ruger for repairs and getting them back fast and with the company going way beyond what the minimum was needed for the repair.  That alone is one of the reasons I just bought Bill Ruger's .17 magnum bolt action. rifle.

I know Ruger triggers have people complaining, I have dry fired their Model 77 centerfire rifles, and yes, those triggers are noticably worse than a Browning A-bolt rifle.  Heavy gritty triggers will hurt accuracy quite a bit.  I am thinking about Ruger's double action revolvers, or even a M 77 in .223, what kind of percentage risk would I take to get one that will shoot ok, or shoot badly, 10/90, 50/50, etc.? :?

Thanks

[grovere]

Chris, I have purchased over the last two years 6 Ruger 77 MKII's. 2 are the plain 77, 3 are the lam-stainless and one 77VT. Out of all 6 only one has been over 2" at 100, the rest were under 1" at 100. And two of those were with factory ammo. With handloads and floating the barrel that one came onto .75" at 100. Yes, the triggers are not the greatest, I spent about 30-45 minutes with each and a set of stones and they are now breaking at just about 3 pounds. They are not hard to work on if you know what you are up to, if not any good g-smith should be able to clean it up without any problems. I also got a GP-161 which has also been pretty good. The double action is heavier than I like and the single action side is pretty nice for out of the box. I do intend on changing the springs to lighten up the pull and smoothing up the action on it too someday. All in all the changes that Ruger has made over the last 5 years or so have been good, and yes, their repair department is doing much better too.

[myronman3]

every ruger i own will shoot better than i can; and i can shoot pretty good.  very few people i have met can shoot as well,   so i guess my rugers get the job done.

[Cabin4]

I have a M77 MK2 with the SS bbl in 30-06. With factory ammo, I can get 1 inch groups @ 100 yards all day long. It does seem to like 150 grain loads the best.

I have not experimented with to many 180's but I plan to this summer as well as a few 200 and 220's. I may also give the Barnes O in 250gr a shot. My guess is that the 250 will not fly well.

[Siskiyou]

In the late 70's I bought a M77 in 7MM Mag.  I then bought a box of Remington, Winchester, and Federal ammo.  Sixty Fired rounds later I realize that I had a very inaccurate rifle.  I was ready to toss it, but first I thought I would try reloading for it.

One of the reasons was that none of the factory loads appeared to be filled close to case capacity.  Could a slow burning powder filling the case improve accuracy?

All I can say is that it is a very accurate rifle with the following bullets and powders:  Speer 145, 160, and 175 grain with H4831.  Remington 175 grain with H4831, H870, and AA8700.  The factory load with this bullet was inaccurate in my rifle, but very accurate when handloaded.  The Hornaday 175 is very good with AA8700 and H4831.

I believe the powder made a difference because I used Remington, and Winchester primers.  I used the same factory brass from the test firing.  I did use different bullets except for the Remington 175 which proved to be accurate.  I believe load density was the key to accuracy my rifle.  In the case of this rifle I acheived accuracy by reloading, and did not need to bed the action or make any modification to the rifle.

Did the barrel need breaking in.  I do not know.  I have not bought additional factory ammo for it.

Siskiyou

[His lordship.]

After giving my recently purchased Ruger 77/17, a good work out at the range, with the exception of the trigger being a bit heavy, this is an accurate rifle!  I plan to install a Timney sear and spring.

I also purchased a blued Ruger GP 100 .357 magnum revolver in a 6" barrel.  The windage adjustment was a few inches off when first fired, but man, that gun was super accurate with the 2 different factory loads that I brought after setting the rear site.  And we are talking about brand new, out of the box, still in the break in period!

It seems that the gun makers go in cycles with quality, combined with the occasional bad gun that is made by an indifferent machinist who might be hung over, etc.  In summary, look the gun over very carefully when thinking about a purchase, no matter the brand.  And be patient if it does not shoot well at first, as some of you guys have noted, try handloads, and/or clean up the trigger before trading it off.

Oh, and after being afraid of Ruger guns for many years, I plan to look at the Super Redhawk down the road, as a possible addition to my handgun collection.

[GTBuzz]

I have always had good luck with Ruger pistols but not their rifles.   I enjoy my MK II pistol, SP101, GP100, Super Blackhawk, and Super Redhawk.    I currently own 1 Ruger rifle, a 96/44 in .44 Magnum.  It shoots about 2.5" groups at 100 yards which is fine for a Lever Action carbine with a low power scope.

 I have owned 3 Ruger M77s and they were all dogs.  2 shot patterns instead of groups and the other was about 2.5" to 3" at 100 yards.   These guns were made between 1985 and 1992.    Ruger wasn't exactly sympathetic either.    So, while my expereince may have been unusually bad, I cannot say that I would buy another one.    I have had much better luck with the Remington M700, Savage 110/116, and Winchester M70s that I own.

FWIW, I have seen more Rugers that wouldn't shoot good than all other brands combined.   I have only seen one that could consistently hold 5 shots under an inch at 100 and it had been rebarreled due to innacuracy from the factory.

It is my undestanding that Ruger has improved their barrels drastically,  but then again so has the competetion.

[les hemby]

all the rugers i have shot have been very accurate. except mini 14 and i am not even sure it would have a good pattern. (group is out of question) whats sad is i believe this is a fine firearm if ruger would get off their butt and fix it. their measure of 2'' at 50yds is not acceptable. i would gladly pay another 200 extra for a bullbarrel accurate ruger. i feel they have missed such a big market here. at least try to keep up with a cheap AR :?  :?