collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Ruger hawkeye??  (Read 7412 times)

Offline mossback91

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2007
  • Posts: 3195
Ruger hawkeye??
« on: January 17, 2008, 10:17:36 PM »
Does anybody have one? What do you think of it? Like the action?

Offline actionshooter

  • Past Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Old Salt
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 6017
  • Location: Olympia/Okanogan
    • https://www.instagram.com/steve.bell.actionshooter/
Re: Ruger hawkeye??
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2008, 10:30:31 PM »
I looked at them and like the 77 better and the new hawkeye cost more.

Offline high country

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2007
  • Posts: 5133
Re: Ruger hawkeye??
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2008, 08:09:09 AM »
I looked at them and like the 77 better and the new hawkeye cost more.

a huge improvement IMO worth the money......well gas is $3.00 a gallon now. rugers were $350 when gas was $.99.................seems relative

Online bobcat

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 39180
  • Location: Rochester
    • robert68
Re: Ruger hawkeye??
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2008, 08:46:06 AM »
I like them and if I was in the market for a new rifle I'd definitely take a hard look at the Ruger first. The new hawkeye is supposed to have a much improved trigger. The old 77's were known for their terrible triggers.

Offline actionshooter

  • Past Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Old Salt
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 6017
  • Location: Olympia/Okanogan
    • https://www.instagram.com/steve.bell.actionshooter/
Re: Ruger hawkeye??
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2008, 09:41:50 PM »
The old rugers did have terrible triggers but compare an old 77MK2 with the hawkeye. Really look at them side by side. They are not as well built and all of the wood I have seen so far isn't as nice. I have only looked at 3 though. The gunshop where I was comparing them the hawkeye was $100 more.
 

Offline high country

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2007
  • Posts: 5133
Re: Ruger hawkeye??
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2008, 10:31:26 PM »
I'd pay $100 for a stock, and if you own a ruger pre hawkeye you prolly bought a stock......or throw your puppy in the microwave because the factory stock pisses you off so bad.

Offline actionshooter

  • Past Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Old Salt
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 6017
  • Location: Olympia/Okanogan
    • https://www.instagram.com/steve.bell.actionshooter/
Re: Ruger hawkeye??
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2008, 08:09:44 AM »
 I was talking about the wood stocks on the M77 being nicer. Not the Zytel canoe paddles the call a synthetic stocks.  :chuckle:

Offline high country

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2007
  • Posts: 5133
Re: Ruger hawkeye??
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2008, 09:29:37 AM »
I was talking about the wood stocks on the M77 being nicer. Not the Zytel canoe paddles the call a synthetic stocks.  :chuckle:

so was I ;). the m77 wood stock is easily the worst ever, right behind the birch savage. could they have made it any chunkier? I think not. the hawkeye is way more slim and efficient then the m77......they throw in a better finish and trigger for the cost of the stock.....good deal.

Offline mossback91

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2007
  • Posts: 3195
Re: Ruger hawkeye??
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2008, 11:25:20 AM »
I was looking at the all weather model.

Offline mossback91

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2007
  • Posts: 3195
Re: Ruger hawkeye??
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2008, 12:37:48 PM »
Have any of you shot one? or do any of you own one?

Offline actionshooter

  • Past Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Old Salt
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 6017
  • Location: Olympia/Okanogan
    • https://www.instagram.com/steve.bell.actionshooter/
Re: Ruger hawkeye??
« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2008, 02:47:37 PM »
I was talking about the wood stocks on the M77 being nicer. Not the Zytel canoe paddles the call a synthetic stocks.  :chuckle:

so was I ;). the m77 wood stock is easily the worst ever, right behind the birch savage.
It must be the luck of the draw, I have a 77MK1 with a wood stock that would rival a Winchester super grade. With that said I don't have a hunting rifle that isn't synthetic.

Offline Bigshooter

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Aug 2007
  • Posts: 6367
  • Location: Lewis Co
  • High Wide And Heavy
Re: Ruger hawkeye??
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2008, 02:23:56 PM »
The only thing a m77 is good for is a boat anchor.  Have looked at a few hawkeyes though and have to admit they look and feel pretty nice.  Am considering buy one in the new 375.
Welcome to liberal America, where the truth is condemned and facts are ignored so as not to "offend" anyone


"Borders, language, culture."

Offline Dakota Dogman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Tracker
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2007
  • Posts: 86
Re: Ruger hawkeye??
« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2008, 06:36:06 PM »
Just got one in .358 Win. before moving west.  Only shot about 1/2 box of shells through it.  Only one real complaint is the tiny safety has sharp edges.  Not real condusive to fast work or thick gloves.  Feeds well, shoots well, I'm pleased with all but that one little thing.  

Just MHO, but Ruger bolt actions are work horses, not show ponies.  Thick?  Yes.  Ugly? Probably.  Reliable? Almost always.

God Bless,

 


* Advertisement

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal