Have you guys seen The Ruger Precision Rifle™ yet?

[IMG]http://www****ger.com/micros/rpr/img/rpr.png[/IMG]

Ruger Precision Rifle?

It's available in .308 Win., 6.5 Creedmoor and .243 Win. and the MSRP is $1,399.00 for either one.

I kind of like it but I'm not sure if - for that money - I want an BA AR style rifle or rather a semi-auto.

__________________
Jorge

Really a clever bit of engineering by Ruger. There's a lot to like unless you're not a 'bolt' person.
Only thing strange to me was the choice of calibers. No issue with the 308 but the other two leave me more than a bit puzzled. Nothing wrong with the 243 but I think others might be more popular and the Creedmore I don't want to begin to think about.

The MSRP is very good for a chassis stock bolt gun. The street price should make it quite appealing.

A similarly configured Savage is 2K.

A similar Remington is 5K.

Just read a review in the latest NRA magazine. Looks promising. They did some unique engineering on it, especially the feature that lets it use numerous different magazines. I've hear of at least one gun dealer somewhere (can't remember -- Arizona?) that's taking orders on them for $999. Of course, I have absolutely no practical use for one, but still...

__________________
Pisgah

According to the data chart in the AR article, average extreme spread for five consecutive, five shot groups at 100 yds. using three types of 6.5 Creedmoor ammunition was .79.
Impressive for an over the counter rifle.
Not my cup of tea but interesting to say the least.

__________________
JimC

I wish they had included a smaller varmint caliber, such as .223 or 22-250.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

I'm not into the military look or a bolt action ar15 clone. Give me accurate, basic functionality. A plain Jane bolt action.

I'm curious as to why 6.5 Creedmoor pushes your buttons.

I know that 6.5 Creedmoor and 260 Remington appear very similar, but rooting around the Web I keep seeing comments that the former is the more consistent round. Why that should be I have no clue. The black art of internal ballistics at work, I suspect.

__________________
Release the Kraken

I have the Savage 10 BAS in 308. The first 20 out of the barrel were .173 on centers. So the proof is in the pudding.

The only concern My friends and I have had about the 6.5 Creedmoor is the continued availability of quality brass. Hornady is capable of making good brass but will they do so? The 260 was just barely OK with just about any brass you used, where the 243, like 308, the good brass is only another component in the chain that makes good ammunition.

On magazines; Savage chose to use a proven Mag, the Accuracy International type which I have 3 different brands of. For a 10 round version you can pay slightly less than $50 to above $110, They all seem to work very well, although some of the generic ones are a little cramped on the inside by .010 to .017 shorter than AI Brand. I have four 5-round AI's that seem to be indestructible and remain flawless!

I glanced over the American Rifleman article but haven't bothered to read it. They seem to fall in love with every gun that crosses their desk, and have written the praises of rifles that wouldn't hit a barn from inside it. However I have seen similar tube (or Tubb) rifles shoot very well, and believe it to be a proven concept. They even seem to shoot well in other colors than black!

As long as Ruger keeps the assembly rate at a level that allows consistency and quality ammunition and components are available, this should be a good rifle!

Ivan

This looks like a very focused niche weapon to see if they can steal business from some of the custom gun makers. Pretty clever really, especially if they are running a loss on each. Caliber choices are in line with the precision rifle crowd. It's not a varmint gun or even a tactical gun, but rather a target rifle. Some buyers will no doubt try to stretch it into other venues but it seems to be focused on only the precision rifle game that has become so popular.
Keith

I wish I knew I was going to grow old so fast from my 30's. I would of purchased all Browning BAR's in my big bore rifles. Now in my 60's the big bores rip off my shoulder and I pick it up on the way home from the range.

I picked up the 6.5, slopped on some paint, a scope and sighted in. 3 touching in the bull after adjustments....

Nice shooting. What was the distance? 100yd?

__________________
Jorge

yessir, 100 for sight in. Took it to the 700 this AM. 5 rounds into 9 inches with a 14 mph wind. It'll do better.....

and then to the field on meat......

LR Steel/tactical shoots are really gaining in popularity. The Ruger is aimed at that market. Cheapest entry going right now.

I'd bet soon you will see other calibers available. The 6.5 was most likely chosen as there's a mess of accurate facttory loads available for the LR crowd, same for .308 Win.

The 6.5 Creed seems like a slight overkill for those prairie dogs...

__________________
Jorge

Dealer here has one in .243 for $999.00. For that, thinking maybe?

Whittaker guns will have them for about $910, catching them in stock will be the only problem

got my suppressor...

kind of late but what scope you have on your ruger

burris XTR II, 4-20 scr.


JJEH, it's overkill on coyotes, too......grin

People have questioned "why?" Well the AR has been accurized for many years now, not only the gunsmiths but also the factories and boutique builders and the accessory manufacturers all know what works. So why not build a bolt gun on a platform where accuracy is well understood? Also there are so many manufacturers that prices for parts are cheap, whether you buy them or make your own there are few secrets left. Accurate and cheap (at least compared to a custom designed gun with all the parts designed new from the ground up).

I like the concept but not the execution.

An accurate, bolt action rifle that accepts magazines is a good idea.

However, I think the rifle is too heavy, the forearm should be smooth, and the adjustable buttstock has too many snag points.

__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

When Ruger pays you to 'think', then maybe they'll let you design one that suits you......

Good point

BTW I looked on Gunbroker, and the .308 and Creedmore chamberings are both getting bids near the MSRP.

__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

I picked up an RPR recently in .243 Winchester.

Going to use it as a heavy caliber long range varmint rifle. The .243 has some advantages over the 6.5 Creedmoor and .308 for this, at least out to 800 to 1000 yards, depending on bullet weight.

Have not shot it yet. Having some scope issues. The ocular won't adjust far enough back for my changing eyes. Sending it to Leupold. Was only going to use this scope this year, but may wind up having to get a dedicated scope sooner.

This is definitely not a walkabout rifle. This is a position rifle. With the scope, suppressor, mag and bipod, but no ammo, it weighs 14.8 lbs. Length with suppressor is 55".

Some owners are reporting handloads under .2 MOA with the .243 RPR.

The RPR is easily rebarreled. Several aftermarket companies are offering replacement barrels already in a variety of caliber, length and weight options. One of these is .22-250 and .22-250AI. Considering getting another RPR eventually and rebarreling it to .22-250 with a fast twist for 55gr and up for general varmint use, and saving the take off .243 barrel as a spare. The 22-250 should have three to four times the barrel life of the 243, and given the cost of aftermarket barrels (Ruger is not offering replacements, at least at this time) it makes economic sense from a varminting standpoint. Or maybe I'll go 22-250 to start and set up a 243 later.

Why not bring your front ring back? then slide the scope back. It looks like that would give you near an inch more 'rearward'. Or turn a 0 moa cantilever base backasswards?

I was wondering the same thing.

__________________
Release the Kraken

I agree, I'd like to see a more basic version as well.. However, I do think a fluted barrel would look nice with it..

It's not the distance, it is the diopter.

The forend has slots for Keymod accessories, and is fairly smooth, at least compared to one with Picatinny rails at 3, 6 & 9 o'clock. The forend can be swapped for other AR15 forends, though it can leave a bit of a gap with some.

I'm not a fluted barrel fan. I think the machining stresses outweigh what little gain you get for cooling and weight savings. and I don't like sacrificing rigidity over a same diameter barrel. Rigidity only increases over a smaller diameter barrel.

As for overall weight, this is NOT intended to be a "bolt action AR-10". It is designed with one purpose in mind... competing in long range competition shooting. It uses AR15 parts because they are modular and are standardized for interchangeability.

It just happens that it also fits a niche for long range varmint hunting where you are not moving around much. Which is why it appealed to me.

My guess is based on the wild success of this rifle (they are hard to get, have waiting lists, and are commanding high prices, sometimes above MSRP) that Ruger is probably looking into a longer magnum action. It would pretty much be a stretch of the existing action and bolt, plus changes for whatever magazine is used.

I don't know about a shorter action for the .223 family. The problem is the bolt design is not going to work very well with an AR15 magazine. What's needed is probably a bolt action upper and an AR15 barrel that lacks gas ports. That would be the easiest solution, since Ruger already makes AR15 clones. They'd probably sell a ton of them in states that have effectively banned AR15s.

I don't buy that. The diopter focuses the reticle. Eye relief is eye relief, and a separate deallie. You've already got the stock collapsed all the way, and the scope mounted about 1 1/2" more to the rear than an average sized shooter would.

Diopter adjustment is a function of moving the ocular eyepiece forward or back from its original factory setting. You move it back if you are farsighted. You move it forward if you are nearsighted. This changes the diopter of the ocular eyepiece and corrects blurred crosshairs for those with vision issues.

It has absolutely nothing to do with eye relief of the scope, which is a totally different function.

So when I say I've run out of adjustment on the ocular eyepiece, I mean I have the ocular assembly turned so far to the rear (as I am farsighted) that the eyepiece is coming up against its mechanical stop before the crosshairs are in focus. I'm sending the scope back to Leupold to see if they can move the stop back further or adjust the eyepiece lenses to compensate.

Those who have noticed the scope position relative to the buttplate is not what a normal person would have are correct. Note, however, the buttplate is NOT collapsed. In fact, it remains in its factory position. It appears to be moved simply because the cheek piece has been reversed.

Why would I set the gun and scope up this way?

Because I have three fused vertebrae in my lower neck, and cannot physically crane my head forward. Those of you who can "get into" a stock don't know how lucky you are. I can no longer do it. My cheekweld is now further to the rear of the stock, and in order to maintain the same eye relief, the scope has to be moved further back. I assure you, the eye relief - for me - is set correctly on this gun. As you can imagine, this frustrates family and friends who try to shoot my guns. Most can't.



This picture clearly shows what I'm referring to. These are a couple of my Browning 1885 Single Shot High Walls, the top a 22-250 and the bottom a 223. Both have Leupold 6.5-20x scopes on them.

The receivers are aligned in the image. Notice the scope on the bottom rifle is much further to the rear. Notice the difference in bases to allow this. The top rifle has the old Browning/Burris bases (no longer made) while the bottom has a set of Leupold bases, but they have been reversed.

That difference in scope position shows how much my fused vertebrae have limited my forward neck movement.

As an aside, the bases and rings in the bottom image are only temporarily installed. They are designed for a tapered barrel and cannot be reversed without damaging the scope tube. I've loosely installed the rings simply to check the eye relief. I'm in the process of designing my own bases and when I get the time will mill them in my shop.

Oh, and another thing, because my cheekweld is further back on the stock, my eye is lower, because on a field stock the comb drops to the rear. The rings on the lower rifle as shorter to compensate for that as well. I went from high to low.



In fact, here is a pic of my Savage 93R17. It shows what I had to do to get it to fit me: reversed the scope base and installed a cheek riser (a modified riser from an HK SL-8 rifle) to move the scope as further to the rear than normal and raise my eye to the scope centerline.

This is one reason why I like the Ruger Precision Rifle. It is modular and adjustable. I can easily get it to fit my particular needs.

The scope is at Leupold. Waiting to hear from them whether the ocular can be modified for more adjustment or have the diopter changed.