codyadams
Well-Known Member
Ya, I am not a fan of the Ruger rings. The Burris bases I have come with torx screws, I have them torqued and lock tighted to 40 inch lbs ha ha, they shouldn't go anywhere.
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Building a Ruger M77 into a long range elk killer...what chambering??
- Thread starter codyadams
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
How do you like the Rings so far? Do you think there's a chance of the scope slipping in them? I would like to use the base with the rings you have.Nice gun you got. How do you like the stock?
I have a the same set-up on my .338 Win Mag (except my rings are Burris Sig) for many years now without any issues.
That is the way to go without machining. I have been monitoring them for while now hoping they are going to build one for my .338 Win Mag.
NEMTHunter
Well-Known Member
Sounds good. I think the Burris Rings are what I am going to get. But even then I still will not get the MOA I want..
Yes those mounts are nice. Do you have a brake on the .338 win mag? If so i am sure the mount would be fine.
Yes, mine has a custom MB similar to Holland's QD brake. They used to have a load factor calculator and also asked them if it's OK to use it in .338 WM; in essence, they said they don't recommended it.
NEMTHunter
Well-Known Member
I get you. On there web page they have the math to calculate if the mount works or not. Just thought if you have a brake then its going to have a lot less energy transferred to the mount. Either way. it seems to be a very nice mount.
I thought the same thing, it might be OK and boils down to a liability reasons as to why they did not recommended it at the time.
NEMTHunter
Well-Known Member
Thats for sure. One way to find out if it works or not.
Danehunter
Well-Known Member
I have a Rem. 700 long action in .300 Win mag and I'm very happy with that cartridge. My action has an HS Precision heavy varmint fluted barrel in an HS Precision M24 type stock. Action was trued by HS Precision when the barrel was installed.
My solution to shoot those Berger Hybrids is a longer magazine for Berger 230 gr. "Tactical Hybrid" bullets by going to entirely new bottom metal and an Accurate Mag magazine.
Eric B.
My solution to shoot those Berger Hybrids is a longer magazine for Berger 230 gr. "Tactical Hybrid" bullets by going to entirely new bottom metal and an Accurate Mag magazine.
Eric B.
codyadams
Well-Known Member
Did some load development in the form of pressure work up finally, don't have any Berger 156's of course, so I'm starting with the 147 ELD'M's and Retumbo. Also, this will be shooting all HBN coated bullets. The bore was treated for HBN prior to load work up. These are the first rounds that have been fired through the rifle.
.264 win mag
7mm rm Federal brass, necked down to .264
CCI 250 Primer
HBN coated 147 eld-m, seated .010" off a saami spec throat (oal 3.330")
Retumbo powder
All loads chronoed w/magneto speed
60 - 2832 fps
61 - 2876 fps
62 - 2915 fps
63 - 2938 fps
64 - 2994 fps
65 - 3044 fps
66 - 3077 fps
67 - 3118 fps
68 - 3167 fps
69 - 3204 fps
70 - 3244 fps and first sign of pressure, faint ejector mark
71 - 3292 fps and slightly heavier ejector mark
72 - 3342 fps and identical ejector mark to 71, and first signs of heavier bolt lift.
So it would seem that the max for this set up will be around the 3200 fps area, not too shabby for this old cartridge!! At the elevation/atmospheric conditions we will be hunting at, this load retains over 1500 ft. lbs and is still going 2156 fps at 1000 yards, with only 1.1 mil of wind drift @ 10 mph, only .1 mil off what a 195 EOL at 3100 fps out of a 28 Nosler does!! I think this is going to be a pretty effective deer and elk rifle, especially once the 156 Bergers come out.
.264 win mag
7mm rm Federal brass, necked down to .264
CCI 250 Primer
HBN coated 147 eld-m, seated .010" off a saami spec throat (oal 3.330")
Retumbo powder
All loads chronoed w/magneto speed
60 - 2832 fps
61 - 2876 fps
62 - 2915 fps
63 - 2938 fps
64 - 2994 fps
65 - 3044 fps
66 - 3077 fps
67 - 3118 fps
68 - 3167 fps
69 - 3204 fps
70 - 3244 fps and first sign of pressure, faint ejector mark
71 - 3292 fps and slightly heavier ejector mark
72 - 3342 fps and identical ejector mark to 71, and first signs of heavier bolt lift.
So it would seem that the max for this set up will be around the 3200 fps area, not too shabby for this old cartridge!! At the elevation/atmospheric conditions we will be hunting at, this load retains over 1500 ft. lbs and is still going 2156 fps at 1000 yards, with only 1.1 mil of wind drift @ 10 mph, only .1 mil off what a 195 EOL at 3100 fps out of a 28 Nosler does!! I think this is going to be a pretty effective deer and elk rifle, especially once the 156 Bergers come out.
NEMTHunter
Well-Known Member
Looking good! I kind of like the old .264 win mag. In all honesty even with the 3200 fps load not showing pressure I feel there is more in it. With the right powder you might get more speed with the the same or less pressure. Should be a fun round for sure. Good job! Watching you makes me want to do a 6mm wildcat..
codyadams
Well-Known Member
I plan on trying Reloder 33 when I can get to a bigger town to get some, and N570 if I can ever find the stuff....I bet those would put close to another 50 fps or better on the table, we will see. According to a quick load work up I saw, those two produced the highest speed. I also like the temp stability of Retumbo however, so it will depend on what the load ends up at. If I get good temp stability with Retumbo and only 30-50 fps slower than Reloder 33, I will probably stick with Retumbo. Either way, I plan on testing the temp stability of Reloder 33 once I get some to see if it will be acceptable or not.Looking good! I kind of like the old .264 win mag. In all honesty even with the 3200 fps load not showing pressure I feel there is more in it. With the right powder you might get more speed with the the same or less pressure. Should be a fun round for sure. Good job! Watching you makes me want to do a 6mm wildcat..
NEMTHunter
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a plan to me. I have been hearing that RL33 is not good for temp changes. I have never used the stuff to see. Even @ 3200 its a great round!
Enjoyed all of this thread. As the owner of three tang safety M77s, I especially liked reading about various rings for the m77. Two of these rifles have timney triggers while difficult to install they were worth it!
To date I have only tried Ruger rings and one set of Leupolds, both fitting into the intregral bases. The Leupolds didn't fit right, I had to do some careful filing to get them to fit. No longer use them.
Cody,
I have had two of those Boyd stocks. I took one and cut out the "tactical notch" then laminated in a piece of wood so I could have a conventional rear stock and added a decelerator. Did you make the cutout for the adjustable cheek piece yourself?
My LA Ruger is a 257 weatherby with a barrel I installed myself. Stock is the McMillan hunter which is my favorite LR sporter stock.
Mudrunner,
Do you have a picture of a EGW base installed on a M77? I have considered having the gunsmith turn my old tang safety into a flattop then tap receiver. Goal is to get a scope as low as possible, something that cannot be done with current lineup of 30mm Ruger rings.
Has anyone tried the Warne Maxima Ruger Riflescope Rings for 30mm Ruger 77?
I am trying to get the lowest mount for 30mm scope with a 28mm front objective. The stock is a McMillan ultralight with a fairly low cheek weld. I realize the Ruger tang safety design has bolt handle/rear ocular clearance issue if a scope is too low. Lowest Ruger offers is a medium with the rings 4B30 and 5B30 being approx. .450" and 575" in height from bottom of scope mounting surface to base contact with receiver. Warnes may be tad lower. They claim the heights are Medium height 14R7 .460" and .705" which to me seems off. They are light at 6.1 oz.
Ross
To date I have only tried Ruger rings and one set of Leupolds, both fitting into the intregral bases. The Leupolds didn't fit right, I had to do some careful filing to get them to fit. No longer use them.
Cody,
I have had two of those Boyd stocks. I took one and cut out the "tactical notch" then laminated in a piece of wood so I could have a conventional rear stock and added a decelerator. Did you make the cutout for the adjustable cheek piece yourself?
My LA Ruger is a 257 weatherby with a barrel I installed myself. Stock is the McMillan hunter which is my favorite LR sporter stock.
Mudrunner,
Do you have a picture of a EGW base installed on a M77? I have considered having the gunsmith turn my old tang safety into a flattop then tap receiver. Goal is to get a scope as low as possible, something that cannot be done with current lineup of 30mm Ruger rings.
Has anyone tried the Warne Maxima Ruger Riflescope Rings for 30mm Ruger 77?
I am trying to get the lowest mount for 30mm scope with a 28mm front objective. The stock is a McMillan ultralight with a fairly low cheek weld. I realize the Ruger tang safety design has bolt handle/rear ocular clearance issue if a scope is too low. Lowest Ruger offers is a medium with the rings 4B30 and 5B30 being approx. .450" and 575" in height from bottom of scope mounting surface to base contact with receiver. Warnes may be tad lower. They claim the heights are Medium height 14R7 .460" and .705" which to me seems off. They are light at 6.1 oz.
Ross
