Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Tang safety - Ruger 77?

  1. #1

    Default Tang safety - Ruger 77?

    It appears that a lot of folks here favor the tang safety version when it comes to the Ruger 77. I'm curious as to why? Is it just because it's a tang safety or is there more?
    I located one in 30-06 that looks really good, at least on the outside, for $400. Is that a reasonable price?
    You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.

  2. #2

    Default

    The tang safety is easier to operate than the three position safety on the newer MKII...doesn't require you to move your hand as much to disengage the safety. The trigger on the old 77s were also more easily adjustable.

  3. #3

    Default

    the tang safety is quieter too...but is harder to operate with gloves sometimes, and does not lock the sear like the MkII...

    also the old TS was not a controled round feed like the new ones are...

    I have both rifles....they seem to work equally well harvesting game animals, if I do my part...

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allen-ak View Post
    also the old TS was not a controled round feed like the new ones are...
    Did they make a tang safety that was CRF? I swear this one was CRF but I could be wrong . . . I was one other time.
    You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    4,071

    Default Tang Safety vs. CF

    The older guns are generally better made also - the newer guns have generally suffered in fit and finish.

    Someday when I get the time I'll adapt my old tang safety 77 to controlled feed - mill out the bottom of the bolt and change the ejector from the spring loaded plunger to a Mdl 70 type. Other option might be to fit a newer bolt and simply add the receiver mounted ejector.


    Quote Originally Posted by gunblade View Post
    The tang safety is easier to operate than the three position safety on the newer MKII...doesn't require you to move your hand as much to disengage the safety. The trigger on the old 77s were also more easily adjustable.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  6. #6
    Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Palmer,Alaska
    Posts
    1,737

    Default

    Swapping bolts sure isn't cheaper.

    As to the question of the tang safeties all being push feed? All the ones I have seen are push feed.

    The only objection I have to any of the Rugers is the integral bases. Sure cuts down on options.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tryants." (Thomas Jefferson

  7. #7
    Member Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    3,209

    Default

    Yep, I believe they are all push feeds as well. I wouldn't mind getting one chambered for 22-250 or something along those lines.

  8. #8
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    Everytime I find one of the old tang safety Rugers, I look them over and if they are in good condition I feel they have better fit and finish than any of today.

    I 've owned a few of them and have converted a couple of them to be CRF. Mill the bolt face and cut a slot where the plunger is then use a Sako style ejector and you have it. It isn't a cheap operation but it does work. I think the tang safety went away because it didn't allow opening the bolt with safety "on" and it wasn't a positive, striker acting safety. The gun rags were calling for three position safeties as well as the Ruger lawyers. The trigger was susceptable to "tampering" and this must have caused Ruger's lawyers to loose sleep also.

    I'll say back in those days that the quality of wood was much better and the rifle fit into the stock very well. I have always disliked the Ruger angled bedding but it was functional and, unless a heavy caliber (375 & up), needed no further reinforcement.

    But then I guess just finding a 25 year old rifle in good condition is a good thing, maybe that's why I like the oldies.
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    4,071

    Default Round top Rugers

    Early on Ruger made some receivers that did not have the intergral bases. Not many of them still around - I guess they are all in collections.

    I have a M77 in 6mm Remingotn with a SN 13X. I got it from GNGs back in the early 80s. The fit and finish on it are really nice. It must have been one of the very first 6mms they made - I think the .308s and .243s were the first calibers produced and the 6mm Rem. were never very popular with the general public - the .243 sold much better.


    Quote Originally Posted by Big Al View Post
    Swapping bolts sure isn't cheaper.

    As to the question of the tang safeties all being push feed? All the ones I have seen are push feed.

    The only objection I have to any of the Rugers is the integral bases. Sure cuts down on options.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  10. #10
    Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Palmer,Alaska
    Posts
    1,737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Early on Ruger made some receivers that did not have the intergral bases. Not many of them still around - I guess they are all in collections.

    I have a M77 in 6mm Remingotn with a SN 13X. I got it from GNGs back in the early 80s. The fit and finish on it are really nice. It must have been one of the very first 6mms they made - I think the .308s and .243s were the first calibers produced and the 6mm Rem. were never very popular with the general public - the .243 sold much better.
    I remember them vary well. There are so few that it hardly worth mentioning. They were around in the 70's as that the last Time I saw any, and they were not new then.

    I was busy with the every day maladies of the life, of a rifle in everyday use in the Alaskan enviroment. I saw vary few of these rifles come in for repair. In the the day, I thought anyone that would buy a cast action, when so many good Mauser actioned rifles were around cheap, was nuts.

    I guess I still think that way. You would think I would have learned something better from life. Sadly, such is not the case.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tryants." (Thomas Jefferson

  11. #11

    Default

    The only objection I have to any of the Rugers is the integral bases. Sure cuts down on options.

    Redfield and Leupold made some bases that fit on these rifles, so one could use Redfield style rings... had to D&T the receiver to mount the base.

  12. #12

    Default

    My two favorite go to rifles are both the old tang safety Rugers. One a 270 that was new in 1973 and a 243 that was new in 1977. Wouldn't part with either for love nor money!

    Gunbroker had a very nice old round top 77 in 7mm mag that went for a resonable price a short time ago. Kinda wished I'd grabbed it!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •