Can't believe the only bolt action 22 Ruger sells now is the American. Why did they discontinue the 77/22 series???

__________________
Forum consigliere

Probably cost too much to produce. Never held one, but fine looking rifle

I've had one for many years, it has a Burris mini 4X mounted and is a great rifle. As Narragansett says it was probably expensive to produce and not a lot of people would want to spend the bucks for one these days.

I've also got a M77 ultralight in .308 with a Burris mini 2-7X, when they're side by side you can hardly tell them apart. Wouldn't trade mine for anything!

One of the nice features of the Riger M77 rimfire rifles was that they felt and held like a centerfire rifle. They may not have been the most accurate out of the box as some other rimfire rifles that cost about the same. Most folks aren't going to drop $600+ on a bolt action rimfire (back when prices were relatively reasonable), and if they did, they would most likely opt for a Browning, Kimber, Cooper, Anschutz, etc. And for less money than an M77 RF you can get a Savage, CZ, and others that are pretty good shooters. So yeah, it probably wasn't cost effective for Ruger to continue to produce them. Pity because they were well built rifles. Glad I still have my All-Weather Target Gray M77/22WMR Laminate (except I put a Green Mountain SS Fluted .920 .17HMR barrel on it). It's my 'go-to' one shot, one kill varmint rifle for racoons, groundhogs, crows, fox, etc.

__________________
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

Co$t to produce and the availability of reasonably priced alternatives...

Or, budget priced alternatives?

Cheers!

__________________
Sit Reloader Sentiret

Very small market for an expensive 22 rifle. I have a 77/17 and it’s beautiful. I think it was $380 15 years ago when I bought it

Yep. Probably the cost. I had one years ago that I loved. It was a "first year" gun, that I got off the used rack at my LGS with a Simmons 2X7 scope for about $400.00 as best I remember. I never touched the scope. Whoever had it before me had it sighted in perfectly for me. All I ever did was load it and clean it. It had no iron sights. Just the slick tapered barrel. Beautiful.



That was a squirrel killing machine. I honestly don't remember ever missing one with it. I'm sure I did, but memory is funny.

Someone mentioned they had a "big rifle" feel. That's the truth. I'm not a rifleman at all. I've owned a few centerfire rifles, but never had much use for them, so they didn't stay around long. That Ruger though gave me the feeling of a "big rifle." I'd felt like I was out hunting elk, or something when I was leaing against a tree, watching for a squirrel, with it in my hands.

I had to sell it during a long period of "personal economic downturn", but man I hated to. At least the guy who bought it appreciated it for what it was.

__________________
John 3:16 .

Like others I have and love one, a first year gun that was in mint shape when it came to me. It is a very well built rifle with the “real gun” feel. The fact that it uses what are probably the best rimfire magazines ever made is a bonus as well.

But as nice as it is it really doesn’t shoot for beans. I have a $50 Savage single shot bolt action from the 30’s that will shoot circles around the Ruger with most any ammo. I have probably tried 20 or more brands, weights, and styles of 22 ammunition in it and only found one load it would shoot into groups under 2” at 50 yards. Of course that was the old American Eagle 36gr HP in the red and blue 40rd boxes that haven’t been available in a decade or so now and I’m down to my last 400 rounds.

I’ve entertained the thought of fitting a Lilja barrel to it, and I may still yet. But then it’ll be a $1000 22 that finally shoots like much cheaper options.

I think the price, plus the reputation for so so accuracy probably led to low sales. Especially when you could buy a 10/22 that shot about as well and used the same magazines for 1/3 the price.

Many years back I bought a 7722 just as soon as my LGS got one in. Put a Leupold fixed 4 on it. (gun had no iron sights)
Gun still is dressed the same way today. I have put a lot of shots threw it both at paper and the occasional pesty animal that needed offing!

I have described this rifle many times as a sportier that thinks its a target rifle.

FWIW at one time I had 3, the original 7722, the 17 and the magnum. Found I could do anything I wanted with just the 7722 and both of the other two were sold!

__________________
14 S&W Revs none with locks!

I think everyone has hit the nail on the head with price to produce. There were just to many options that performed as well or better at cheaper prices.

Ruger only stops making a firearm for one reason . . . they ain't making money off of them, most often because the model is not selling enough.

__________________
Live long and prosper

I’ve got a stainless all-weather with the boat paddle stock. It’s a keeper.

I’d imagine not a huge market for a “plinker” 22LR bolt action with MSRP in the $1200 range.

77s weren’t $1K back when they came out. I have 1st year 77/22
and it became my serious 22 for hunting. At 1st bought Burris Compac 6x, which was a fine scope but I didn’t like field of view.
Ended up with Redfield 4x that will shoot minute of squirrel eye at 40yds. Why 40yds you ask? Because that is optimal range to sight in a 22 for hunting purposes.
I have a 77 early production, in 270. Put a new Weaver K6 on it
and proceeded to sight in with Winchester factory ammo, I didn’t load for 270 at the time. A memorable fluke was this is the only rifle of the hundreds I’ve sighted in that drove dead center at 100yds with no adjustment. With hand loads it will shoot sub MOA if I do my part.
I’ve owned several 77s in different cartridges and only had one stinker. That was a 1776 model 77 in 257 Robert’s, it wouldn’t do better than 2.5” at 100.
As far as why 77/22 was discontinued is no doubt sales. The new generations that are doing the buying want a rifle that looks like it came off Star Wars with a Drum magazine or a rifle made of plastic and stainless that will take a beating with little upkeep.

Attached Images

IMG_1468.jpg (81.2 KB, 21 views)

It has to be cost of production. I’ve handled and shot one. It felt just like my 77/22 Hornet and 77/44. Not many people want to spend center fire money on a rim fire rifle……as a side note the one I shot was not real impressive in accuracy. Don’t recall the ammo we used. I’m sure it was cheap bulk. Probably Winchester or Federal from Walmart.If they made one with a Mannlicher stock under $500:id buy one

Like others have said, production cost.

Few years ago, I found a new in box stainless/synthetic 77/22mag. Put a Leupold 2-7 on it, couldn't be happier. Only thing I did was pull the stock off and hit it with some krylon granite texture paint as it was on the slippery side.

Last year was in my LGS and in the used rack they had the same gun but it was a 77/44mag. Put the same scope and krylon paint job on it.

Fun guns!

I bet Ruger got a lot of competition from their 10/22 semi-auto fifle ...
and that may have cut into the overall 77/22 sales numbers .
Anything that's even close to a "Slow Seller" seems to get dropped !

When I bought my first 22 rifle ... it was the Ruger 10/22 and although I love bolt action rifles ... and would love to have a 77/22 ... the 10/22
keeps getting the job done ...
Also , being of Cajun heritage , I am real tight with the purse strings !
Gary

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

accuracy with a Ruger was always a little bit hit or miss. Most of them were good. I have no complaints about any of my Rugers, other than the 3 Mini-14s I had. But let’s not go down that rabbit hole.

I have 3 77/22s and a 77/17. 2 of them now wear Volquartzen barrels. The “Boat Paddle” is all stock, as is my walnut and blued slick. The walnut gun has fiddle back from one end to the other and will very nearly keep up with my Volquartzen barreled 77/22 and 77/17. Both of the Volquartzen guns started out as VBZ configuration. If ammo and conditions are perfect, I can occasionally get a 1/4 inch five shot group at 50 yards. The blued walnut gun isn’t very far behind. Both the Volquartzen barreled 77/XXs have been glass bedded and wear Leupold scopes.

The 77/17 is the most consistently accurate rifle of the bunch; in part because the ammo, and barrel. The 17 is my killing gun. Nine for 9, one shot kills on fat Indiana soybean fed groundhogs last year. Plus a crow or 2, and the chipmunk that was tearing up Sugarpuss’s landscaping was vaporized.

The savage with the plastic stock shoots good? Good. We’ll see what the savage and the Ruger are worth in 20 years. I know which one I’m betting on.

Unfortunately, the majority of people these days don't appreciate high quality anymore and don't want to pay for it.

I have a 77/.357 which is a great utility gun here in Penn's Woods. Can't believe the current pricing...MSRP $1,239.00 Don't think I paid half that for the gun and a Leupold 1-3x20 scope.

In bolt action rimfire rifles my choices were CZ 452s and 453.. not overly expensive, accurate and good looking!

I like the M77 22s, they are high quality grown up 22s. But given the choice I'd take a CZ, and many agree from what I see at the range.

Cheap Savages etc... on one end, high quality middle price CZs on the other end, they are probably pinched right out of the market.

__________________
"Free dirt, you dig."

That's the one I wanted, but never bought.

So many guns, so little money.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

The 77/44s were definitely hit or miss accuracy wise.

What kind of accuracy were the 77/357s getting?

I have a 77/22 VBZ version. I wanted stainless steel but did not want the nylon stock. I consider the laminate stock to be very attractive, especially paired with stainless steel.

I was aware of reports of mediocre grouping ability of these rifles. I was determined I would not let that happen to me. The wise monkey would have first tested that stock 77/22 with a variety of ammo to find out how the rifle grouped to establish a baseline, rather than just throw money at it.

But I was too smart for that. I completely customized that rifle using Volquartsen parts, since I had experience with VQ and their quality. The only thing I did not do myself was bolt tightening. I sent the bolt to Connecticut Precision Chambering for that.

The result of all this was/is a 77/22 that would/will shoot <MOA at 50 yards, from the first time out with it. In fact well under, without even getting into more expensive target ammo than what I was using to find out just how far <MOA. Once I had gotten sub MOA, that satisfied me.

I am not sure that this rifle is legal for competition. I have not shot PPC competition for years, and have no interest in any formal competition any longer. If however, I were to run into someone at the range that has a different make .22 sporter I think in such a contest my rifle, in its current configuration, would be competitive.

Admittedly my approach was the antithesis of fiscally reasonable. The other end of though has been that I ended up with just the rifle I wanted.

I only own three .22 rimfire rifles. The 77/22 is my favorite.

I bought my 2 VBZs used.

The 17 HMR owner told me that he was never satisfied with the accuracy of the rifle he sold to me, and “had done everything” to it to get it to shoot well. Yeah, but he didn’t throw a barrel at it. I love re-barreling guns. There is nothing better than taking an ho-hum gun (usually a rifle) and turning it into a tack driver.

He also included 14, 50 round boxes of ammo. I sold the factory VBZ barrel, which deferred a large portion of the Volquartzen barrel. I figured after the smoke cleared from paying Geoff Corn to open up the barrel channel, install the barrel, and bed the stock, I was at about the cost of a factory BVZ. But mine was shorter and was capable of 1/2 moa (on a really calm day! lol)

I killed a lot of prairie dogs with that rifle. 235 Y with a Leupold range finder was my farthest kill.

I have two 77/22s, a plain regular model with walnut stock purchased new in 1988 and a stainless version in laminate stock bought new in 1998. Except for scopes on rifles, I seldom modify a gun in any way. If they don't shoot well straight out of the box, I don't keep them long. Both of my rifles are easily capable of half-inch, five-shot groups rather consistently. I have an old Weaver 3X scope on the first gun and an equally old 4X Weaver on the stainless rifle, plenty of magnification for any .22 if you're not shooting beyond a hundred yards or so. I only use CCI SV in my rifle.

It's very important to shoot 50 yard groups with as many ammos as possible. Often, there is much accuracy difference among ammos.

I had an old JM Marlin 1894 in 44mag which I thought was above average for accuracy in a carbine. Then I mounted scopes and sighted in two 77/44
with 2x7 Leupolds for same family. They had bought Win White Box 240gr at Wally World. I sighted them in at 60yds and they both out shot any 44 I have owned including #3 and original Ruger Deerslayers.

I’ve always felt in terms of quality of workmanship the walnut and blued M77/22 (top) was equal to or a cut above medium high end factory sporters like the CZ 453 (middle), Remington Model 5 (bottom);



or the Remington 541S.



My early production version doesn’t come up all that short of the Winchester Model 52 Re-issue sporter or the Kimber Model 82 Sporter.




Now…to be fair they often need some tweaking for decent accuracy. Mine was only about 3 MOA accurate. But shimming the bolt, bedding the action and free floating the barrel, and replacing the trigger cut the ground size in half making it a solid 1.5 MOA five shot group rifle at 100 yards.


Adding that kind of quality is the least expensive way to add value, but I don’t think Ruger ever really figured that out. If that had, people would have still been more than willing to pony up $1000-$1200 for a 77/22.

I bought an American .22 in late '22. It has a Leopold 4x12, while not an ideal bolt action/scope combo, it is fine for me. Equals the average accuracy of my 10-22's, and an occasional box of 40gn Aguila outshoots that average. Here I have it with my plinking sight, a SIG Romeo.

Attached Images

American rimfire 22 R.jpg (59.1 KB, 9 views)

__________________
Heavily armed old man.

I purchased my Ruger 77/22 about 15 years ago from an older gentleman on Gunbroker that was liquidating his collection. It’s a first year, 1984, serialed in the 4000’s. It came with a Leupold 4x Compact mounted on it and no iron sites. Ruger 10/22’s have passed through my hands over the years but this 77/22 has remained my favorite 22. It’s just a solid, well made full sized rifle. One of Rugers ads tout the 77/22 as a cheaper shooting alternative practice rifle to their larger 77’s. Back in 2017 Ruger dropped the 77/44 (later replaced with a 77/44 with threaded barrel) and Bass Pro had them discounted at $379 plus tax. So I had to have it at that price. I mentioned the sale here on the forum and several others bought one. The 77/44 actually feels a little lighter than the 77/22 but then it does have an 18” barrel compared to the 20” of the 77/22. As others have said, as well made as they are I believe it just got too expensive to make with other cheaper alternatives on the market. Many would rather have a cheaper gun that shoots well than a quality gun that shoots well. But years down the road make the 77/22 worth the extra money.

__________________
Get off my lawn!

Agree with Yendor357. The barrel change was the essential element in making my 77/22 a sub MOA grouper.

As I alluded in my initial post, I was willing to spend as much money as necessary to get what I wanted.

At the end of the process, between buying the rifle new, and then the modifications, I had spent what a new Anschutz 64 action, or used Anschutz 54 sporter would have cost me.

For my money, this is what I got in return:
1. An extremely consistent sub MOA shooter, using target ammo, but far from the most expensive. Given tests I had read of Volquartsen barrels, my rifle would have grouped even tighter had I used even more expensive target ammunition.
2. Ruger tough. Of course that came with the stock rifle. But given this .22 rimfire action was able to be successfully converted to be chambered for .44 Magnum is indictive of how over-engineered this action is.
3. I did it myself, except for the bolt shimming. I am not a gunsmith nor armorer. I do have reasonable mechanical skills. I could take some pride at what I was able to accomplish.
4. Uniqueness. I am the only kid on my block with this particular 77/22. I am sure there are others like it, probably even identical, but since relatively few people were willing to put this much money into an already expensive rifle that arguably should have shot <MOA right out of the box, there are overall not that many. No where near the 10/22 conversions.

Once I had tested this rifle, and found how well it grouped how easily, I added some bling. The VBZ models did not come with a wrist cap. During the time I was modifying my rifle Ruger introduced the stainless steel version of their Model 1 single shot centerfire rifle. Being stainless it came through with a laminate stock. But this one had a wrist cap on it. Road test writers in the hook and bullet press, even including one of my books, highly praised this wrist cap asserting it was the nicest wrist cap in the industry.

I decided to order one and see if it would fit on my rifle. It turned out to be sized perfectly, so I cut a rubber spacer and installed it. It looks as if it came stock on the rifle. It is an elegant finishing touch. A further bit of unique.

Now, years later, I have long since absorbed the cost of this project, while still having the rifle.

I have never regretted the expense. It is a part of this hobby.

The issue with the 77/44 accuracy was easily cured with bolt shims. Same with 77/357 and 77/22 hornet. I bought a brand new production 77/44 in August. I fully expected to have to shim it. BUT bolt was incredibly tight and it shot MOA at 100 yds with Winchester white box.