Ruger barrels any good?
03-13-2007, 05:04 AM
#14
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Where the ducks don't come no more
Posts: 4,420
RE: Ruger barrels any good?
ORIGINAL: cma3366a
there is nothing inherinyly wrong with hammer-forged barrels, as with anything, ithas more to do with the quality of the materials and work, than the process itself, makers like CZ who are known for their accuracy use the process.
That said, Ruger does have a bad barrel reputation, related mainly to the period in which they outsourced their barrels to Wilson IIRC. They have since moved production in-house and quality is rumored to have improved.
there is nothing inherinyly wrong with hammer-forged barrels, as with anything, ithas more to do with the quality of the materials and work, than the process itself, makers like CZ who are known for their accuracy use the process.
That said, Ruger does have a bad barrel reputation, related mainly to the period in which they outsourced their barrels to Wilson IIRC. They have since moved production in-house and quality is rumored to have improved.
03-13-2007, 06:43 AM
#15
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location:
Posts: 106
RE: Ruger barrels any good?
First I would have to say the Ruger lug isn't angled. The lug itself is vertical. The front screw is angled. As far as an advantage or disadvantage There isn't really any that I can see.. A ruger action is no harder to bed than most any other. it is however a little different than a remmy and there are lots of smiths that could bed a remmy in there sleep and a Winny with one eye open would hesitate to do the ruger.
The ruger lug does have at least two disadvantages worth mentioning.
The first is the ruger lug is intergral to the reciver so you can't replace it like you can with some others.
Second it could be a little larger. I know that people will come down differently on this but on vary large cal rugers which are in fiber glass stocks with a "soft" construction in the lug area I have heard reports of problems. Myself I have a 338 tang safety in a B&C and once had a 358 Norma in a Mcmillan and neither had a problem.
I would be interested to see if ruger did anything different in the "alaskan and african" 375s.
The ruger lug does have at least two disadvantages worth mentioning.
The first is the ruger lug is intergral to the reciver so you can't replace it like you can with some others.
Second it could be a little larger. I know that people will come down differently on this but on vary large cal rugers which are in fiber glass stocks with a "soft" construction in the lug area I have heard reports of problems. Myself I have a 338 tang safety in a B&C and once had a 358 Norma in a Mcmillan and neither had a problem.
I would be interested to see if ruger did anything different in the "alaskan and african" 375s.
03-13-2007, 06:57 AM
#16
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location:
Posts: 106
RE: Ruger barrels any good?
ORIGINAL: Roskoe
If you can judge the overall quality of a barrel by what a take-off barrel brings on the open market, Ruger barrel aren't too hot. Remington and Weatherby take off barrels generally go for somewhere between $50 and $75. Ruger take off barrels are worth somewhere betweenzero and $40.
If you can judge the overall quality of a barrel by what a take-off barrel brings on the open market, Ruger barrel aren't too hot. Remington and Weatherby take off barrels generally go for somewhere between $50 and $75. Ruger take off barrels are worth somewhere betweenzero and $40.
To be fair the market for Ruger and Remmy parts as relates to customs is radically different. There are probably 25 custom remmys for every ruger. (for a bunch of reasons, History, Aftermarket part selection, action weight, Both real and precieved accuracy varitaions.) Frankly I can't really see spending the cash to put a takeoff back on a rifle but I do see people buying them on ebay sosome folks must.
03-13-2007, 08:19 AM
#18
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location:
Posts: 106
RE: Ruger barrels any good?
In target rifles and upscale customsthere are a number of enhanced recoil lugs used that are not used on factory rifles. They simply are not nessesary for 3/4 MOA rifles or 0.5 MOA rifles for that matter.
Why wouldn't remmington, CZ or Savage copy rugers recoil lug? Well cost for one. Could you imagine the number of machining steps required to do something like that on a remmington, Mauser or savage action? Second for a factory rifle or even the entry level type custom rifle Remmingtons recoil lug is fine as is the Rugers.
I would suggest that a glass or piller bedded ruger isn't stable.. you should look for a more experienced smith.
I realise that there are some pretty advanced schools of thought about action mating surfaces as we approch the realm of long range and target rifles but the rugers action is flat bottomed and very easy to bed consistantly. The flat bottom makes the action very solid in the bedding from a side to side standpoint something that might not be said for a remmingtons. I would suggest that a full length bed is a nicestep as ruger does have a center screw which can torgue the action if the center is left unsuported. but ruger isn't alone in that.
Anyone of those actions can be pretty easily bedded well enough for any non competitive use.
I would have to say that most of the us manufacturers have been more interested in cost control in the last 20 years than real product improvement. Winchester went through enough varitaions of cost controluntil it killed them. Remmington hasn't made a substancial change in the 700 for who knows how long. ( Its not like remmy could use a few tweeks.. how about a beefer extractor?) I may be wrong but I thought the fit and finish of remmingtons was better 20 years ago.
Why wouldn't remmington, CZ or Savage copy rugers recoil lug? Well cost for one. Could you imagine the number of machining steps required to do something like that on a remmington, Mauser or savage action? Second for a factory rifle or even the entry level type custom rifle Remmingtons recoil lug is fine as is the Rugers.
I would suggest that a glass or piller bedded ruger isn't stable.. you should look for a more experienced smith.
I realise that there are some pretty advanced schools of thought about action mating surfaces as we approch the realm of long range and target rifles but the rugers action is flat bottomed and very easy to bed consistantly. The flat bottom makes the action very solid in the bedding from a side to side standpoint something that might not be said for a remmingtons. I would suggest that a full length bed is a nicestep as ruger does have a center screw which can torgue the action if the center is left unsuported. but ruger isn't alone in that.
Anyone of those actions can be pretty easily bedded well enough for any non competitive use.
I would have to say that most of the us manufacturers have been more interested in cost control in the last 20 years than real product improvement. Winchester went through enough varitaions of cost controluntil it killed them. Remmington hasn't made a substancial change in the 700 for who knows how long. ( Its not like remmy could use a few tweeks.. how about a beefer extractor?) I may be wrong but I thought the fit and finish of remmingtons was better 20 years ago.
03-13-2007, 09:14 AM
#19
Fork Horn
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 310
RE: Ruger barrels any good?
The fit and finish of Remington rifles WAS better than it is today. Today the finish on many Remington rifles leave a LOT to be desired! The rough texture and finish on Remingtons today is inexcusable. They certainly don't have to pride and quality they used to have.
