Info please on a Ruger M77 .270

[rockaway]

I am looking at getting a Ruger M77 .270 for a deer/Elk rifle. Is there anyone out there that can give some info on this rifle. Is it an accurate rifle out of the box? What modification may need to be made? Do you recommend it?

Thanks,

Greg

[Applegate]

I have the very rifle you are looking at, and a few more in different calibers. I think it is a wise choice. If the gun fits, buy it!

[Turnerjo13]

I have one in .270 and so far I like it. mine is the hawkeye version. With hand loads it shoots under a minute of angel out of the box. The trigger is not great but it is not terrible. Overall it is a good solid gun and a well proven caliber.

[Lunkerlander]

I have one that had a trigger job done on it. I like it.

[lentz]

I have the same model but in a 7mm Rem Mag and a 22-250 and i really like them both. They have performed with not flaws at all other than operator error

[blacktail hunter]

i got one in 338 and i love it it shoots great.

[sidewinder]

The hawkeye version of the m77 is a neat rifle. I only have one m77 in the safe, but I think they are a good gun. Mine is a 300wm...a better choise for a deer/elk rifle imo.....unless you don't like recoil.

[Dan360]

I was once an M77 hater, but I'm past that now. They are a solid rifle for a decent price. If I were set on having a 270, I would probably go with a different rifle. Rugers have 22 inch barrels on standard rifles in standard calibers, which is a tad short for my liking with the 270. I view the 270 as an open country cartridge where I like to milk as much speed as I can with a longer barrel.

I think there are better choices if you are a timber hunter. If you don't do a lot of open country hunting, you might look at the 308 Winchester or 30-06. If I had to have one rifle, it would be my 30-06 with 180 gr bullets, not my 270 with 140 gr bullets. I really like the larger frontal area of the 30 calibers over the 270 when it comes to shooting in timber. I think they just plain hit harder.

Another advantage of a 30 is that larger bullets leave larger holes. This is a good thing on an elk or deer that you lose sight of after the shot.

But if you insist on the 270, its not a bad cartridge and will do the job in capable hands. I wouldn't feel undergunned with a 270 for elk, but I'd have to be willing to say "no" more often when angles aren't optimal.

[tdspence]

I have one in 300 win mag and I really like it. I also put a Timney trigger on mine and the lighter trigger pull has helped my accuracy.

[DogZilla15]

Dan360 is giving good advice.

You said this is a combo deer/elk rifle but your theory is that what's good for deer is also good for elk. We need to turn that around and say, what's good for elk is also good for deer. Get something .30 cal or larger (.338) and match the bullet to the game being hunted. Combo calibers don't always work so good when they're geared for the smallest game being hunted.

[Hunt'nFish]

EXACTLY!.........
I love the .270/.280 class cartridge.......but like others I don't consider it an elk cartridge.
More like a deer/bear/goat combo rifle. for that they are wonderful.
But for elk.....I'll stake my hunt on more rifle than a .270.
Screw O'Conner.......I sit at Elmer's fire when it comes to elk rifles.

As a gunsmith I don't care for the M77. Triggers suck, aren't adj'ble and simply should be replaced.
Funky action and screw positions that make glass bedding difficult. Mediocre barrel quality.
I guess you either love them or hate them. Most smiths hate them.
Certainly eaiser rifles to work on.

But I have to admit, one of my buddys loves his and he does seem to shoot it pretty well.
So ignore me and follow your heart.
Hunt'nFish

[Lik2f&h]

I have one in 243 winchester as well as one in 300 win. Magnum and both shoot really well. I only shoot handloads in my guns so that can explain the smaller groups in the target. The triggers are adequit enough for a hunting rifle to me. My 300 shoots 1/2 " 3 shot groups over a sandbag rest. I'd say if you are sold on the 270 winchester, make sure you shoot premium bullets out of it. I've seen some not so satisfactory results on game shot with the on sale factory cartridges. I think you can't go wrong with the ruger m77 if it's what you like or can afford.

[Grantspastor]

I have three..they are great rifles. Might need some trigger work

[nevermiss]

I've had the exact model and caliber you mention, and except for the trigger not necessarily being the best I have no complaints. Shoots straight right out of the box and has several bucks to it's credit. I don't hunt elk much, but I know Bob Milek and family used .243's for elk and did VERY well. Ya just gotta put that pill where it belongs!

[death roe]

i owned one for about 5 years,and loved it. i had to part with it in my divorce i still have a 7mm and a .243 in the M77 and love them both . fear not buy away

[cooky]

Of the ones I've shot it seems that the triggers have a lot of creep. Other than that I know a lot of people who shoot the M77. I think the .270 is a fine round for what it is but as others have said its tough to have one gun for every circumstance. With premium bullets it will hit hard at ranges up to 300m. I use mine for elk hunting and will continue to do so until I get a "canyon buster" of my very own. All and all I'm very happy with the .270 cartridge but its long range power coupled with my own incompetency means I won't shoot at an elk unless I can see snot on his nose.

[SImudBogger]

go with a savage. Less money, better gun.

[tailchaser]

Ditto on what others have said....I have a .270 WSM in a Mark II and I absolutely love the gun now that I've fixed the issues mentioned above. The trigger issue takes getting used to, it's next on my list of items to attend to and I could not get the gun to group worth a darn the first year. After noticing some rub marks on the barrell I figured out it wasn't seated properly and rubbed on the stock after the first shot expansion. After taking a good hone to the stock and shaving off a lot of material it now is finally free floating and is a tack driver. I shot a 3 shot group the last time at the range with all three holes touching each other at 100 yards. I use it for deer/lopers/and backup elk gun.

tc

[Maddie'sDaddy]

http://www.ifish.net/board/showthrea...04#post2265904



This one looks like it would do a great job for what you are wanting, Rem 700 is a great model and the 7mm mag will def get the job done for both deer and elk. And Good price.


MD

[motcha]

I have one in a .280 Rem and I love it and its my go-to rifle!! I have owned it for 13 years now....

My bro has on in .270 and he likes his very much.

[Dan360]

Originally Posted by DogZilla15

You said this is a combo deer/elk rifle but your theory is that what's good for deer is also good for elk. We need to turn that around and say, what's good for elk is also good for deer. Get something .30 cal or larger (.338) and match the bullet to the game being hunted. Combo calibers don't always work so good when they're geared for the smallest game being hunted.

I agree 100%. I pick a caliber for the largest animal I might face on a hunt. I hold the 270 and 7mm in the same boat considering the difference in bullet diameter is only .007 inches. Not a big difference. Maybe the 7mm gets the nod because of the ability to use 160 or 175 gr bullets, but they still lack the frontal area when compared to 30 calibers, 8mm and 33 calibers.

Sure, people drop elk with the 243. They can be effective in capable hands. On the other hand, why limit yourself to optimal conditions? Give yourself as much of a margin of error as possible on animals as big and tough as elk.

If you already had a 270, you could use it on elk in a pinch. Since you haven't bought one yet, I suggest you look into a larger caliber if this will be your one and only rifle. I can't say enough about the 30-06. Sure its kind of pedestrian in nature. Plain, old, boring, but super effective. Not a big step up in recoil from the 270, if you'd even notice it. Craig Boddington, a field editor for G&A/RifleShooter/Hunting, wrote an article of a Ruger M77 in 30-06 he bought in the 70's. Using 180 gr Nosler Partitions, he had a string of one-shot kills on some 20 head of African game up to Zebra. Not a bad endorsement!

[jmg]

I own a blued '06 and a stainless 300 win mag in M77. I like them both. I kind of agree with others that if you want a deer/elk gun, go a little heavier (gun wise).

[rockaway]

I really appreciate all the feedback on this rifle topic. I shouldn't be so supprised on the quality of the responses, but I am. This really speaks well for the people who use this web site and their willingness to help each other. I am grateful.

Thanks,

Greg

[Grantspastor]

I'll also add that of all the rifles I own...the Ruger M77 in .270 is the most accurate....followed by an equivalent Savage 116. The only thing I have done to the Ruger is to bed the action and work up a handload it likes. It shoots 3/4" five shot groups at 100 yards.

[leadeyedbugger]

Rugger M77 in .270 will suit you just fine for Oregon hunting. I wouldn't be blasting at elk at extreme ranges with it but for normal hunting ranges it will cleanly take deer and elk with no problems.

[Big Unit]

Originally Posted by rockaway

I am looking at getting a Ruger M77 .270 for a deer/Elk rifle. Is there anyone out there that can give some info on this rifle. Is it an accurate rifle out of the box? What modification may need to be made? Do you recommend it?

Thanks,

Greg

You're selling your answer. Your .300 you're selling is perfect for all of the above needs!

I have a .270....too light for all elky conditions.
BU

[ehunter]

I have no experience with your gun or caliber but I sort of crack up with all the nay sayers when it comes to the 270 caliber there is a member here who has killed a ton of elk with his 270. Also if I can kill a bull with a arrow traveling at a little over 200 feet per second a 270 will kill elk fine. It is all about bullet placement any way. If your trying to make Texas heart shots you had better get a much bigger gun to begin with. The bottom line is if its a gun that you can shoot and shoot it more often and your more familar with it and not afraid if it you will be able to hit where you want.

[Maddie'sDaddy]

I have been shooting my Rem model 700 .270 for about 8 years now and every elk I shot at I have killed (3) and many deer, I do not shoot reloads and have never had to adjust my scope while sighting in to get within an inch pattern at 100 yards. I just dont think you can go wrong with that caliber, And like some have said if you are comfortable with the gun that your shooting thats more important than caliber above a certain size.




Oh and how did you like the Chanterelles?



MD

[Rank Amateur]

Originally Posted by ehunter

I have no experience with your gun or caliber but I sort of crack up with all the nay sayers when it comes to the 270 caliber there is a member here who has killed a ton of elk with his 270. Also if I can kill a bull with a arrow traveling at a little over 200 feet per second a 270 will kill elk fine. It is all about bullet placement any way. If your trying to make Texas heart shots you had better get a much bigger gun to begin with. The bottom line is if its a gun that you can shoot and shoot it more often and your more familar with it and not afraid if it you will be able to hit where you want.

Sounds like you had better step up to a magnum bow!

It would really be nice if there was a place you could go and shoot different calibers and different makes of rifles to find your comfort level. While I may be the guy ehunter is referring too, I would also say using the largest rifle caliber you can comfortably shoot is the way to go. My .270 has served me well, most shots on the westside have been under 100 yards, shot one bull over east at 200.

What I find funny is people who would not use a .270 on a bull at 400 yards, but would use a 30-30 on a bull at 100 yards.

[WSU]

For what it's worth, my wife shot a spike this year with a .270. She was shooting 130 grain triple shocks and got a complete pass through while hitting bone on the near side and the far side. Sure seemed like enough gun to me.

[Dan360]

I don't think its a question of whether the 270 is adequate or not. Its just that its not ideal. I took my Honda Accord elk hunting this year. Adequate, maybe. Ideal, no.

A heavier bullet with more frontal area will give you a bigger margin of error. They hit hard, penetrate deep at less than optimal angles (doesn't need to be an up-the-pipe shot, heavy bone is bad enough) and in my opinion, damage less meat. I've yet to shoot a deer with a 270, but I've shot a couple with a 7mm Rem Mag and have seen deer shot with the 270 WSM. Both of my shots on deer with the 7mm caused heavy damage and large exit wounds. Good thing I don't mind losing rib meat on a deer. The 270 WSM caused heavy blood shot. High velocity, little bullets, not my cup of tea if I move up to elk. Hit a heavy bone with one and watch how many pieces of bullet you'll find.

I'll take a 30 caliber, 8mm or a 33 caliber any day if I had just one rifle. Hard to beat a speedy 30 for all-around usefulness. Even the 30-06 can be pushed pretty fast if you want it to be.