All I can say is the 77/44 was supposed to have accuracy issues. Shimming bolt was the first step. Than the trigger. I bought 2 brand new ones ( one for my son) and out of the box they shot great and bolt was very tight. This leads me to believe Ruger fixed whatever the issue was with their 77s
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
Ruger 77/22 in .22 Hornet - Opinions?
- Thread starter SLT223
- Start date
All I can say is the 77/44 was supposed to have accuracy issues. Shimming bolt was the first step. Than the trigger. I bought 2 brand new ones ( one for my son) and out of the box they shot great and bolt was very tight. This leads me to believe Ruger fixed whatever the issue was with their 77s
22 Hornet...great cartridge for varmints to 150 yards
Never owned a Ruger but a Stevens Model 322 in 22 Hornet kept me in bounty money (woodchucks and red fox) in upstate New York throughout my teen years in early 1960's.
Had to sell the rifle along with my other guns when drafted into the Army in 1966.
Years later I finally found a Savage 340 in 22 Hornet and snagged that guy as fast as I could. So far only some outdoor range plinking at 100 yards, but still a great gun, a great cartridge in my opinion and the older Savage or Stevens are still around at very reasonable prices as the old timers sell off.
I will say that the ammo is expensive and hard to find around here but I have gotten hold of a decent stash so it is not out of the question.
The pics of the Stevens were lifted off the I-Net as digital anythings were not invented back in 1962
The 340 pics are of my rifle.
Never owned a Ruger but a Stevens Model 322 in 22 Hornet kept me in bounty money (woodchucks and red fox) in upstate New York throughout my teen years in early 1960's.
Had to sell the rifle along with my other guns when drafted into the Army in 1966.
Years later I finally found a Savage 340 in 22 Hornet and snagged that guy as fast as I could. So far only some outdoor range plinking at 100 yards, but still a great gun, a great cartridge in my opinion and the older Savage or Stevens are still around at very reasonable prices as the old timers sell off.
I will say that the ammo is expensive and hard to find around here but I have gotten hold of a decent stash so it is not out of the question.
The pics of the Stevens were lifted off the I-Net as digital anythings were not invented back in 1962
The 340 pics are of my rifle.Attachments
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
LOVE the 77/22. Have an old stainless boat paddle one. Also have an older 77/44-wish I had bought the .357 one though.
I am distressed ta RUger does not make them anymore but honestly I think the American may be a better rifle. I sent my 77/22 off ot Clark to dress up the trigger and it is perfect. Seems like the Ruger American has a nice adjustable trigger and I like the short bolt throw. The only thing keeping me from buting one is the lack of open sights and the fact that I recently won a "Trump" 10/22 with the American Flag Stock- That one is about as Obnoxious as they come
I am distressed ta RUger does not make them anymore but honestly I think the American may be a better rifle. I sent my 77/22 off ot Clark to dress up the trigger and it is perfect. Seems like the Ruger American has a nice adjustable trigger and I like the short bolt throw. The only thing keeping me from buting one is the lack of open sights and the fact that I recently won a "Trump" 10/22 with the American Flag Stock- That one is about as Obnoxious as they come
max503
Member
A Savage Model 340 in 22 Hornet was my first centerfire rifle. Like an idiot, I sold it. It was the best hunting rifle I've ever owned. It got me into reloading.
Hornet rifles have good power and low noise, if that is a factor where you shoot.
Hornet rifles have good power and low noise, if that is a factor where you shoot.
Last edited:
DWalt
Member
My only .22 Hornet story goes back over 50 years when I lived in Western Maryland. I had a friend with a Winchester Model 43 in .22 Hornet. It was his one and only deer rifle and it worked for him.I believe at that time, and maybe still, any CF rifle was legal for deer. In that part of the world hunting distances were usually short, less than 100 yards.
Last edited:
Yendor357
Member
The only experience I have with the 22 Hornet is I saw my friend knock a starling off a fence post at 129 yards.
The 77/XX family, I have a lot of experience with them. The VBZs are the laminated heavy barreled version. Those are the best working rifles. I put Volquaretzen barrels on a 22LR and a 77/17HMR.
The LR accuracy is dependent on ammo. I always say that a 1000 yard rifle in a 150 yard round. Sub one inch at 100 has happened numerous times. The 17HMR does even better. It’d better be dead calm if you’re shooting for groups. I did a prairie dog at 235 (Leupold range finder); 9 groundhogs last year.
The Rifles: They have a very solid overbuilt feel to them. I’ve never shimmed any of mine and I have 5 of them. There is no reason to send them anywhere if you’re dissatisfied with the trigger, usually just a lighter spring is all they need. The latest is a 77/357.
The only downfall is the fact that they’re kind of expensive. I’m a little surprised Ruger still makes them.
I’m of the opinion that Ruger barrels are better now than in the past. My latest 77/22LR (5ish years old) give my Volquartzen barreled 77/22LR a run for its money.
My opinion is BUY.
The 77/XX family, I have a lot of experience with them. The VBZs are the laminated heavy barreled version. Those are the best working rifles. I put Volquaretzen barrels on a 22LR and a 77/17HMR.
The LR accuracy is dependent on ammo. I always say that a 1000 yard rifle in a 150 yard round. Sub one inch at 100 has happened numerous times. The 17HMR does even better. It’d better be dead calm if you’re shooting for groups. I did a prairie dog at 235 (Leupold range finder); 9 groundhogs last year.
The Rifles: They have a very solid overbuilt feel to them. I’ve never shimmed any of mine and I have 5 of them. There is no reason to send them anywhere if you’re dissatisfied with the trigger, usually just a lighter spring is all they need. The latest is a 77/357.
The only downfall is the fact that they’re kind of expensive. I’m a little surprised Ruger still makes them.
I’m of the opinion that Ruger barrels are better now than in the past. My latest 77/22LR (5ish years old) give my Volquartzen barreled 77/22LR a run for its money.
My opinion is BUY.
rockquarry
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,516
- Reaction score
- 10,463
I've had ten .22 Hornets (including a K-Hornet or Improved, don't remember which) in the last forty or so years. Only one I would call truly accurate and that was a CZ that I sold.
I was interested in the Ruger 77 Hornet some time ago but didn't want to buy one and then have to have it accurized. I really like the .222, but the .223 is almost as good. One advantage of the Hornet is that it's quiet in comparison with the bigger cartridges.
I was interested in the Ruger 77 Hornet some time ago but didn't want to buy one and then have to have it accurized. I really like the .222, but the .223 is almost as good. One advantage of the Hornet is that it's quiet in comparison with the bigger cartridges.
elpac3
Member
Unfortunately, in today’s market, hornet ammo looks to be running $1.00 to $2.00 bucks per round. If you love the hornet, go for it. If you hand load you have a bunch of options for bullet styles and loads.
The hornet used to be a150 yard Pennsylvania woodchuck gun due to the ranges and reduced report compared to the other CF .22’s.
I love shooting the hornet. Had some issues getting a tight shooting load until I forget who, here on the forum suggested the 30 grain varment grenades with 296 powder. Groups went from 1.5” @100 to less than .5” @100.
I have had a couple of hornet rifles over the years and love shooting them. Each had its own “sweet spot” for accuracy.
I would suggest if you like the hornet, get one.
The hornet used to be a150 yard Pennsylvania woodchuck gun due to the ranges and reduced report compared to the other CF .22’s.
I love shooting the hornet. Had some issues getting a tight shooting load until I forget who, here on the forum suggested the 30 grain varment grenades with 296 powder. Groups went from 1.5” @100 to less than .5” @100.
I have had a couple of hornet rifles over the years and love shooting them. Each had its own “sweet spot” for accuracy.
I would suggest if you like the hornet, get one.
RM Vivas
US Veteran
I had one of the first 77/22 Hornets and I liked it alot!
Having said that, I replaced it with a CZ 527 in .223 Remington.
I have been reloading for 40 years and I can make a .223 do pretty much the same as Hornet and then some. If you dont reload, then the get the Hornet. If you reload however, get the much more common component cartridge .223 and reload it up or down as needed.
As for the CZ platform; I got their heavy barrel varmint model with a single set trigger and slapped a Leupold on it and went jihad on woodchucks in mt locale. Had some pretty spectacular shots. Best was a measured 427 yards; thats almost a quarter-mile!
Best,
RM Vivas
Having said that, I replaced it with a CZ 527 in .223 Remington.
I have been reloading for 40 years and I can make a .223 do pretty much the same as Hornet and then some. If you dont reload, then the get the Hornet. If you reload however, get the much more common component cartridge .223 and reload it up or down as needed.
As for the CZ platform; I got their heavy barrel varmint model with a single set trigger and slapped a Leupold on it and went jihad on woodchucks in mt locale. Had some pretty spectacular shots. Best was a measured 427 yards; thats almost a quarter-mile!
Best,
RM Vivas
I think conventional wisdom would suggest the opposite. There are tons of .223 factory loads. Hornet, not so much. AND expensive. I think the Hornet would be better for the hand loader……… another thing is, OP didn’t ask what caliber we would suggest instead of the Hornet. He asked specifically about the Ruger platform. No matter the caliber I can tell you about one that out performs it. Why would anyone buy a 222 when they could have a 223? Why would anyone buy a 44 special when they could have a 44 magnum? The attraction to the 22 Hornet is that it’s a 22 Hornet. And that’s pretty cool.
Last edited:
dsf
Member
I had one for a few years. Tried to make it shoot but like others here couldn't get good accuracy. I used factory and my hand loads with Sierra and Hornady, 35 and 40 grains. SR primers, pistol primers - nothing helped.
On line "corrections" took me to the two piece bolt and I did the shimming with no luck. Perhaps it was related to how the receiver and trigger group go together. I kind of moved on, got a single shot Anschutz that is boringly accurate.
I wanted to like the 77 Hornet, but for me it's right up there with the No1 for "beautiful but a PITA" to get to shoot right.
On line "corrections" took me to the two piece bolt and I did the shimming with no luck. Perhaps it was related to how the receiver and trigger group go together. I kind of moved on, got a single shot Anschutz that is boringly accurate.
I wanted to like the 77 Hornet, but for me it's right up there with the No1 for "beautiful but a PITA" to get to shoot right.
rockquarry
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,516
- Reaction score
- 10,463
They're are many older .222 rifles available on the used market, most of which are very good quality rifles like the Sakos.
Ballistically, and in the field, there is very little difference between the .222 and .223. I've handloaded for both for many years in a variety of rifles. I've found the .222 slightly more accurate and it's a bit easier to develop a good accurate load for the .222 than it is the .223. Splitting hairs here, granted, but that's what accuracy is all about.
No condemnation of the .223 intended. If I had a .223 that I was satisfied with, no need to replace it with a .222; the cartridges are just too similar. The .222 was THE benchrest cartridge for many years because of it's accuracy and there is still a place for it. Of course, the .223 is far more popular these days and ammo is cheaper and much more available, but I've found the bulk junk ammo to be a waste of money as it's not very accurate. As always, though handloading is the best bet.
elpac3
Member
It is hard to get a “bad” load for the .222.
Have an old Remington 722 in .222 that shoots bug holes all day long with H322 powder. H335 is good but not as good.
I would suspect if you do not hand load, go .223. If you hand load go whatever you fancy. I fell in love with the hornet back in the early 70’s, then the .222, then the .221 then the .22 jet then- - -
Have an old Remington 722 in .222 that shoots bug holes all day long with H322 powder. H335 is good but not as good.
I would suspect if you do not hand load, go .223. If you hand load go whatever you fancy. I fell in love with the hornet back in the early 70’s, then the .222, then the .221 then the .22 jet then- - -
77/22s in .22LR, .22WMR or .22 Hornet are capable of good accuracy, but not always right out of the box.
There are four major areas for improvement:
1) You need to shim the bolt to achieve minimum headspace. Bolt shim kits are cheap and it’s not hard to install them. There are plenty of how to videos out there.
2) The triggers leave something to be desired, not bad, but not what you normally want on a Hornet. Volquartzen, Rifle Basixs and Timney all make trigger kits or replacement triggers for the 77/22.
3) Like the Model 77, Ruger designed the 77/22 receiver to bed in a single horizontal plane with four contact areas (under the barrel block, the tang and the two flats behind the magazine well). They did that to make it easy to get good results with machine inlet stocks. Unfortunately it seems to work better in theory than practice.
Depending on the model some are free floated and some use a pressure bad under the barrel at the end of the fore end. All of them shoot better when free floated. And it’s when you start free floating the barrel that you often discover the action isn’t properly bedded as the barrel keeps sinking as you remove the wood pad in the forend. If you encounter that, just stop and properly bed the action. Leave a business card between barrel and fore end at the front of the fore end and you’ll get adequate clearance ar the bottom of the barrel channel. Also make sure it’s even side to side. You just need to bed the four contact areas discussed above along with 5e first inch or two of the barrel in front of the barrel block.
4) If it still won’t shoot in the 1.25-1.0 MOA range with Hornady 35 gr V-Max (which shoots 1 MOA or better in virtually every Hornet capable of that accuracy), then it needs a new barrel.
Ruger sourced their rifle barrels from Douglas from 1968-1973 and they were excellent barrels and gave the Model 77 a good reputation for accuracy. However in 1973 they switched to barrels from Wilson and accuracy with them was….spotty…. and Ruger rifles developed a reputation for hit and miss accuracy. Ruger stayed with Wilson barrels until 1990.
The 77/22 was introduced in 1983 and from 1983-1990 those Wilson barrels were used, and you can get one that just won’t shoot.
In 1990, Ruger started hammer forging their own barrels and very quickly started producing excellent barrels. If you have a 77/22 made after 1990 the barrel should be fine.
There are four major areas for improvement:
1) You need to shim the bolt to achieve minimum headspace. Bolt shim kits are cheap and it’s not hard to install them. There are plenty of how to videos out there.
2) The triggers leave something to be desired, not bad, but not what you normally want on a Hornet. Volquartzen, Rifle Basixs and Timney all make trigger kits or replacement triggers for the 77/22.
3) Like the Model 77, Ruger designed the 77/22 receiver to bed in a single horizontal plane with four contact areas (under the barrel block, the tang and the two flats behind the magazine well). They did that to make it easy to get good results with machine inlet stocks. Unfortunately it seems to work better in theory than practice.
Depending on the model some are free floated and some use a pressure bad under the barrel at the end of the fore end. All of them shoot better when free floated. And it’s when you start free floating the barrel that you often discover the action isn’t properly bedded as the barrel keeps sinking as you remove the wood pad in the forend. If you encounter that, just stop and properly bed the action. Leave a business card between barrel and fore end at the front of the fore end and you’ll get adequate clearance ar the bottom of the barrel channel. Also make sure it’s even side to side. You just need to bed the four contact areas discussed above along with 5e first inch or two of the barrel in front of the barrel block.
4) If it still won’t shoot in the 1.25-1.0 MOA range with Hornady 35 gr V-Max (which shoots 1 MOA or better in virtually every Hornet capable of that accuracy), then it needs a new barrel.
Ruger sourced their rifle barrels from Douglas from 1968-1973 and they were excellent barrels and gave the Model 77 a good reputation for accuracy. However in 1973 they switched to barrels from Wilson and accuracy with them was….spotty…. and Ruger rifles developed a reputation for hit and miss accuracy. Ruger stayed with Wilson barrels until 1990.
The 77/22 was introduced in 1983 and from 1983-1990 those Wilson barrels were used, and you can get one that just won’t shoot.
In 1990, Ruger started hammer forging their own barrels and very quickly started producing excellent barrels. If you have a 77/22 made after 1990 the barrel should be fine.
rockquarry
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,516
- Reaction score
- 10,463
I bought two new 77/22s in the '80s. With the exception of adding low-powered scopes, these guns were straight out-of-the-box unmodified and surprisingly accurate. Same for a laminated/ stainless heavy barrel version purchased new in the '90s. Good results from three such guns tells me Ruger was doing a lot right with these .22s, or at least they were some years ago.
Similar threads
