Why no enthusiasm for Ruger MK11 actions

[rdog]

I wonder why there appears to be not much interest in the Ruger MK11 action on this forum verses Mauser M98 .I can appreciate the nostalga with the M98 & i have 3 of them, & 5 Ruger 77 MK11 from a technical comparison i think the Ruger is better. Known metallurgy & heat treatment, integrated scope mounting system , bigger locking lugs with no split lug for the ejector, true controlled round feed, better trigger & safety all steel bottom metal , no bolt handle mods required ,faster lock time. The M98 has a better one piece magazine box & bottom metal, the Mauser Military action takes a lot of work to build a sporter rifle. & the cheaper sporters like the Parker Hale, Inter arms, Zastava require a bit of work to clean them up . What do you think?

 

[BourbonTrail]

I had one in 270 Win, the only reason I got rid of it was that I was poor and really wanted the 30-06 that I traded it for. It was a great deer rifle.

 

[Joker12]

I have several Ruger 77s in my safe and agree that they are fine rifles. They don't take a backseat to any.

 

[Sarg]

I think the Ruger is fine, built too cheaply & a lot of corners cut but clean up nice .

My main work rifle for Buffalo & Bantang back up was a M77 tang safety .458Win (I like those safetys) we were supplied with Mauser 98 .458Win's in Brown Precision stocks with Magna Porting, which were good also, but some of them were poorly built & if I was away I might lose mine from the rack & get stuck with a jamming poor feeding Pig !

Only time I was let down was broken magazine spring & ended up with a single shot, lucky the .458 stopped it with the one !

 

[Wyatt Smith]

Personally I hate the safety, it hard to get to.

 

[CBeck]

Love my .280 Remington M77 mkII….I’ve hunted with it for 25 years. I even like the boat paddle stock it’s in. Of course, I also have a push feed model Winchester model 70 that I love…slick as owl snot…so what do I know.

My only complaint with Ruger is they’re a bit sloppy In QC. I just had to order a magazine box, spring and follower for my brand new M77 Hawkeye African. It wouldn’t feed. When I bought my first M77 it wouldn’t hit the broad side of a barn. Turns out the bedding screw was loose from the factory. A mini 14 I bought had a broken retaining spring on the heat shield from the factory.

The customer service is always great and they always happily send the replacement parts promptly but shouldn’t have too.

Their products are solid and the M77 is a great action. They just need to pay attention to the small stuff.

 

[Berettaco]

I have a couple and have owned quite a few. I think they are a great option and a good value rifle. Haven’t had any QC issues, and can’t think of any I’ve had that didn’t shoot MOA or better.

 

[Sarg]

Personally I hate the safety, it hard to get to.

You have trouble getting to a M77 Tang safety or you mean the wing type safety of the MKII ?

 

[Doug3006]

I had an older M77 with the tang safety. I think the tang safety was great and much preferable to the mk2 wing safety. I agree that the wing safety on a M77 is difficult to operate.

 

[crs]

No complaints at all on my old Ruger M 77 with tang safety. It is chambered in 338 Win Mag and is accurate and powerful. Over the years, it has been tuned by Magnaporting, glass bed action, recoil pad, Leupold scope, and trigger pull adjusted. Action is smooth and never a problem feeding factory ammo. Whats not to like?

 

[ldmay375]

The Ruger does not have the nostalgic history of the Mauser. Some do not like the angled recoil lug, some do not like the bolt handle, some do not like the investment casting, some do not like the safety, some do not like the trigger, some do not like the ring attachment, some just do not like Ruger.

I have several Ruger rifles, from 223, 308, 7mm Rem Mag, 300 Win mag, 338 Win mag, 375 Ruger, 416 Ruger. I do not have an issue with the action nor the rifle. The triggers, I have either replaced, had slicked up, or in a few left as is. The wing safety could extend out a bit more, but I have adapted to where it is not an issue. I normally replace the stocks with aftermarket synthetics. I have had to slick up a couple of the actions in 416 and/or 375 Ruger. No great feat, because I was able to personally do it.
I have Winchester M70’s that I adjust the triggers, replace the stocks; so no great difference in effort. The coned breech of the M70 usually feeds smooth.
I have commercial Mauser types also. They basically get the same treatment.
The Rugers that I have are very functional, the accuracy is not lacking. They are my most used rifles.

 

[ZG47]

Most of the Yank rifles have a receiver diameter halfway between the small and large ring Mausers and even the WSM/WSSM/RUM actions have smaller receiver diameters than large ring Mausers. That has an influence. Another problem is that probably fewer than 1% of so called gun writers have bothered to advise their readers that the Ruger Hawkeye has a significantly deeper receiver than the standard Mark II and a WSM/RUM receiver diameter. I suspect that this is because they were too lazy to notice the differences.
Every Ruger bolt-action rifle is a good rifle. I suspect that the Hawkeye receiver compares well with every Tikka receiver from the M55/65 onward for stiffness AND with post 68 Model 70s in this respect.

 

[Rob404]

I like my 6mm Ruger, nothing fancy just a likable good shooter

 

[fourfive8]

Personally I hate the safety, it hard to get to.

I assume you are talking about that grossly undersized tab on the swing safety that first showed on their Hawkeye. If so... agreed! I have no idea what the R&D folks at Ruger were thinking. That was the first thing I noticed when I picked one up after they came out, "what in the *!&** is this!" In the field particularly in cold weather and wearing gloves.... very poor design! I think it was a half arsed attempt at mimicking the Win 70 safety but they got too cute with it.

As far as the other Ruger bolt models based on the basic 77? Eh... On the outside they had and still do have a very good burnished metal and finished look along with good stock dimensions, IMO, but sometimes looks are deceiving. I had very poor experiences with two in a row in the mid-late 70's in two different calibers. Chambers all out of kilter with one causing dangerously high pressures with normal loads. Haven't touched one since then, sorry Ruger... no mas, no mas

 

[Wyatt Smith]

You have trouble getting to a M77 Tang safety or you mean the wing type safety of the MKII ?

I assume you are talking about that grossly undersized tab on the swing safety that first showed on their Hawkeye. If so... agreed! I have no idea what the R&D folks at Ruger were thinking. That was the first thing I noticed when I picked one up after they came out, "what in the *!&** is this!" In the field particularly in cold weather and wearing gloves.... very poor design! I think it was a half arsed attempt at mimicking the Win 70 safety but they got too cute with it.

As far as the other Ruger bolt models based on the basic 77? Eh... On the outside they had and still do have a very good burnished metal and finished look along with good stock dimensions, IMO, but sometimes looks are deceiving. I had very poor experiences with two in a row in the mid-late 70's in two different calibers. Chambers all out of kilter with one causing dangerously high pressures with normal loads. Haven't touched one since then, sorry Ruger... no mas, no mas

Yes the small unusable wing safety is the one I hate. My dad has a tang safety 338 and I really like that rifle. I like everything about my 9.3 but the safety.

 

[rdog]

I assume you are talking about that grossly undersized tab on the swing safety that first showed on their Hawkeye. If so... agreed! I have no idea what the R&D folks at Ruger were thinking. That was the first thing I noticed when I picked one up after they came out, "what in the *!&** is this!" In the field particularly in cold weather and wearing gloves.... very poor design! I think it was a half arsed attempt at mimicking the Win 70 safety but they got too cute with it.

As far as the other Ruger bolt models based on the basic 77? Eh... On the outside they had and still do have a very good burnished metal and finished look along with good stock dimensions, IMO, but sometimes looks are deceiving. I had very poor experiences with two in a row in the mid-late 70's in two different calibers. Chambers all out of kilter with one causing dangerously high pressures with normal loads. Haven't touched one since then, sorry Ruger... no mas, no mas

Yes i am aware that some of the mk1s had bad chambers this apparently was addressed on the MK11.

 

[rdog]

Most of the Yank rifles have a receiver diameter halfway between the small and large ring Mausers and even the WSM/WSSM/RUM actions have smaller receiver diameters than large ring Mausers. That has an influence. Another problem is that probably fewer than 1% of so called gun writers have bothered to advise their readers that the Ruger Hawkeye has a significantly deeper receiver than the standard Mark II and a WSM/RUM receiver diameter. I suspect that this is because they were too lazy to notice the differences.
Every Ruger bolt-action rifle is a good rifle. I suspect that the Hawkeye receiver compares well with every Tikka receiver from the M55/65 onward for stiffness AND with post 68 Model 70s in this respect.

Thank you i have a 7x57 Hawkeye and did not know about the deeper receiver compared to the MK11

 

[1dirthawker]

I like my Ruger rifles. i have a 375 ruger and a new (to me) 9.3x62. they appear to be mauser copies to me. CRF, claw extraction, etc. the 375 was not smooth when i got it, but has slicked up with some polishing compound and cycling it. the 9.3 is a rebarreled 30-06 i think and it throws as slick as oiled bearings.

the 3 position safety works fine and is absolutely safe when in the rear position. it actually engages /locks into the firing pin. like a lot of things, just takes a little getting used to.

i bought the stainless alaskan (i live in alaska) and it is a 20", express sighted, integral rings, synthetic stock with a great recoil pad ready to go, turnkey guide/hunting rifle. the gunsmith assures me he can make the trigger much better, and maybe i'll take him up on it some day. lots of rifles need or could use a little trigger, model 70's, ca's etc. maybe an r-8 does not, but for another 100 bucks i can iron out that wrinkle.

the ruger m-77's are pretty good out of the box and of course can be made better like just about any rifle that does not cost over 5 grand already. i like em, and would not hesitate to use an action for a DG rifle.

 

[Sarg]

I had a 416 Ruger Alaskan, was always going to rebarrel to .458 Win but had a play with it, well didn't feed factory 416 Ruger ammo & if you whipped the bolt back fast for a reload the cartridges jumped up out of the magazine !!!

Funny thing in .458 Win it didn't do that & feed great lol !

 

[fourfive8]

Yes the small unusable wing safety is the one I hate. My dad has a tang safety 338 and I really like that rifle. I like everything about my 9.3 but the safety.

I guarantee Ruger was made aware of (or already knew about before release) that hiding-in-plain-sight flaw almost immediately after release into the market. But big companies have an unshakeable and predictable aversion to admitting any error of judgement… short of a major lawsuit. They have a type of built in arrogance with some leaders living in a mutual admiration bubble within that culture. Hornady and certain Hornady bullet design failures come to mind. The woes of Remington (rip) likewise. I think Ruger is as arrogant as any of them and they likely view the crappy little unhandy safety lever issue as a mere nuisance to be ignored.