Ruger 77 Nighthawk or Remington 700

[postoak]

With all the money I'm saving on my cheap trip to Africa, :D , I'm actually thinking about buying a .35 Whelen!

What do you have to say about these two rifles? I can get the Ruger for about $630 and the Remington for about $899.

[Wismon]

Did you mean the Ruger Hawkeye? If so then for me, of the two, I'd choose that; no contest whatsoever.

The Ruger is CRF and it comes with integral scope rings include.

Also, I've twice been with people who had a negligent discharge with a Remington 700. They may have hit the trigger for all I know but in both cases I'm glad I didn't get shot. Again, it was probably operator error.

But, all in all, I'd prefer the Ruger.

[postoak]

Thanks! Yes I meant Hawkeye. I guess I had Honda motorcycles on the my mind.

[Altjaeger]

Ruger

[postoak]

Reasons?

[Altjaeger]

Reasons?

Cuz!:)

[bugsNbows]

+1 on the Ruger. It's tough, dependable and not half bad looking.

[Altjaeger]

PostOak they tell the following story about Calvin "Silent Cal" Coolidge.

It seems one Sunday his wife was ill and he attended church alone. Upon his return she asked how the sermon had gone and he replied, "Good". Then she asked what it had been about and he responded with, "Sin". No satisfied she asked once more what the minister had said about sin. In classic brevity his response was, "He was ag'in it". :D

Truth is I like the looks and feel of the Ruger and I like the block scope mounts. Although I think CRF is greatly overated if one operates a bolt properly apparently many can't or don't know how. However, I do like the fact that is a bit more true to the Mauser design with its historical importance.

Last but not least though I cannot tell you its origin or reason I am prejudice against the M700. It was not always so. Perhaps it is the problems with the trigger or the reports about 5 years ago of shoddy worksmanhip.

Anyway I hope after our 3 post, 3 word exchange this helps.:)

[southtexas]

If I were building a varmint rifle, I'd go with the M700. Easy action to build accurately (just a tube within a tube) and lots of aftermarket goodies available.

But for a big game hunting rifle, I'd go with the Ruger. More rugged design, extractor takes a bigger bite of the case rim, better trigger system, and I like the 3 position safety.

The Hawkeye, although relatively new, is developing a good reputation for accuracy, too.

[postoak]

Done! In .35 Whelen. SS.

[southtexas]

So when do we get to see pics?:)

[postoak]

Got to get it and put a scope on it first!

[Hi Ball]

Well I would tell you Winchester model 70 but Ruger is a close second and I don't believe Winchester chambers that .35-Whelen in their new lineup yet.:D

[Just a Hunter]

For the most part when I enter the woods I have little to fear, but there are parts of Georgia where you can find black bears that can approach 600lbs.

Just recently I was told a state record bear of 574 lbs was taken and if memory serves me correctly another bear was taken which was even larger.

When I go deer hunting in areas I know are occupied with bears I can assure you I have my Ruger with me. I might be just fine with my Rem-700 or my T/C Encore, but should I find myself in a hairy situation (pun intended) I would feel much better about having a control round feed and massive extractor with me.

[Bushman]

When ever I had a problem with a weak ejection, it was with my M700 using a magnum weight cartridge. They ejected, but not like I remember my dad's M98 8x57 Mauser. That rifle would send that empty spinning two benches over. Controlled round feeding is why that is recommended for a dangerous game bolt action. I think that I read once that completely supporting the cartridge head with a push feed bolt makes it likely to be a more accurate rifle than a crf bolt. Positive empty cartridge extraction holding the rifle at any angle was a big plus for the military crf Krag, Springfield and Mauser actions.

[Altjaeger]

When ever I had a problem with a weak ejection, it was with my M700 using a magnum weight cartridge. They ejected, but not like I remember my dad's M98 8x57 Mauser. That rifle would send that empty spinning two benches over. Controlled round feeding is why that is recommended for a dangerous game bolt action. I think that I read once that completely supporting the cartridge head with a push feed bolt makes it likely to be a more accurate rifle than a crf bolt. Positive empty cartridge extraction holding the rifle at any angle was a big plus for the military crf Krag, Springfield and Mauser actions.

I have read a few comments about the larger extractor being less likely to break on a Mauser than a push feed's. However, the biggest thing claimed was that a shooter was less likely to "short stroke" or not completely cycle the full length on the action expelling the fired brass jamming the action with a push feed. That is not possible with the CRF because the second round cannot be pickup up until the first is clear.

Learning and practicing the proper bolt technique makes this impossible and results in having a new round in battery faster. I think any advantage is greatly overblown if one properly manipulates the action instinctively.

[Sabre]

For the most part when I enter the woods I have little to fear, but there are parts of Georgia where you can find black bears that can approach 600lbs.

Just recently I was told a state record bear of 574 lbs was taken and if memory serves me correctly another bear was taken which was even larger.

When I go deer hunting in areas I know are occupied with bears I can assure you I have my Ruger with me. I might be just fine with my Rem-700 or my T/C Encore, but should I find myself in a hairy situation (pun intended) I would feel much better about having a control round feed and massive extractor with me.

Chicken shit:D We have black bears around here too and they do get BIG. One was hit in the road not two miles from here a few years back that went 550 lbs on DEC's scales. Not only do I NOT carry a contolled round feed rifle when out deer hunting but I go small game hunting all the time armed with nothing more imposing than a .22 rifle. As a matter of fact, I just got back from squirrel hunting with my .22 a few hours ago and all I had 'er loaded with was CB caps ! I'll be damned if I'm gonna start carryin' a CRF centerfire after squirrels just because there are a few bears around.

[Just a Hunter]

I fully respect your decision not to arm yourself with anything larger than a .22 when around large predatory animals.

I also respect the right's of others to drive without seatbelts, and motorcyclist to ride without helmets. I happen to think that in both cases your needlessly putting your life at risk, but if thats there wishes far be it from me to say there stupid for doing so.

I suspect all is fine till one has there first really close call, and after that they may learn that what once was thought as correct may be far from it.
Then again there are some of us that will go through there live's never learning from there failings, and destined to repeat there mistakes time and again.

Like yourself I once entered woods known to have both bears and wild hogs without fear or a manner of defense. It was fine as I was confident anything in the woods would gladly get out of my way long before I ever saw it simply because I walked on two legs.

I've learned there are indeed some things in the woods that could care less who or what I am and in those cases I am either a intruder or a meal.

In so far as hunting squirrell with a centerfire rifle I wouldnt waste a $1.00 bullet on a .30 cent piece of meat. I will gladly take my trusty .22 rifle when hunting the tree rats, but I will also have a .44mag on my side.

[Phil T]

To answer the original question, (too late it seems, the purchase has already been made) buy the one whose stock puts your eye in alignment with the sights or scope.
Of the choices you offered, I would personally have to chose the Ruger. The Remington cheekpiece and my chubby cheeks result in my eye at least 1/2" to the left of the sights. Ruger stocks fit me. I have several, but a couple of them shoot no better than 2" groups at 100 yards. I have an Ultralight that is still searching for a handload that will group under 3" at 100 yards.
A 1 1/2" game rifle that comes to shoulder and eye without any head adjustment is better in the field than a tackdriver that takes an extra few seconds to find the scope's image.

[Sabre]

I fully respect your decision not to arm yourself with anything larger than a .22 when around large predatory animals.

I also respect the right's of others to drive without seatbelts, and motorcyclist to ride without helmets. I happen to think that in both cases your needlessly putting your life at risk, but if thats there wishes far be it from me to say there stupid for doing so.

I suspect all is fine till one has there first really close call, and after that they may learn that what once was thought as correct may be far from it.
Then again there are some of us that will go through there live's never learning from there failings, and destined to repeat there mistakes time and again.

Like yourself I once entered woods known to have both bears and wild hogs without fear or a manner of defense. It was fine as I was confident anything in the woods would gladly get out of my way long before I ever saw it simply because I walked on two legs.

I've learned there are indeed some things in the woods that could care less who or what I am and in those cases I am either a intruder or a meal.

In so far as hunting squirrell with a centerfire rifle I wouldnt waste a $1.00 bullet on a .30 cent piece of meat. I will gladly take my trusty .22 rifle when hunting the tree rats, but I will also have a .44mag on my side.

It's just that I'm smart enough to know that I'm far more likely to be killed in a car accident on the way to hunt or get struck by lightning than eaten by a bear. I've been in close proximity to about a dozen bears while out hunting, trapping and fishing over the years and have never been threatened in the least. I have been treed by a crazy holstein bull and viciously attacked by a large mongrel dog while hunting though. In both cases I was armed with nothing but a .22 rifle and obviously I'm still here. The same cannot be said for the dog or the bull.

[Wismon]

So a .22 to the head will put down a bull, huh? That makes sense; I've heard that some farmers slaughter bulls with a .22.

I guess that's why I've never thought that a .22 would be worthless for self defense. Less than ideal, yes, but not worthless. It would probably take a head shot to stop the assailant, though. Any comments? What do you think?

[postoak]

Wismon, you might enjoy the book "The Iceman" which is about the most prolific hitman in history, Richard Kuklinski. His favorite weapons were a .22 LR with a silencer and a 2 shot .38 Special revolver, which he could hold in his palm.

[Bushman]

You bet a .22 LR will put down a crazed Holstein bull. When I worked summers in the packing house, we killed around 1,200 head of cattle a day and some of those tough old bulls would shake off the knocker and come back to life on the rail. The guys would use a .22 LR pistol to kill it with one shot to the head. The meat inspector was right there to condemn that head for meat, but that .22 LR did the job every time.

[Wismon]

Thanks, but I couldn’t read a book about that sample of human pestilence. I checked out the Wikipedia entry on him and just about barfed. I’d imagine that he’s sharing a cell in Hell with Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and Ted Kennedy where they all take turns sodomizing each other.

Thanks for the info on the diminutive little .22, though.

[Just a Hunter]

Ok, I was ready to let this topic ride its course, but this is getting a bit stupid.


Richard Kuklinski used a .22 on a regular basis, but was also aware of its benefits and limitations. He wasnt just a contract killer, but also a serial killer when time was available. This guy experimented on the homeless and for better words undesirables of the city to see what was the best way to kill and how long it would take.

Kuklinski openly admitted that when he used a .22 it was up close and often within arms length. He knew exactly where to put the bullet to be most effective, and his targets assisted him in not being aware that death was coming there way.

In this same way a 2000lb bull can be taken down by a 22 fairly easy when it's restrained in a holding line. You simply walk up to the bull fully unsuspecting and for the most part unable to move freely and place one well made shot where it counts.

Guys, this supports nothing about how well a .22lr works for self defense in a real world situation.

I've cared for more than a few individuals whom were shot multiple times with a .22lr and in many cases they drove themselves to the hospital.
It's not like you have the opportunity to ask a assailant to hold still as you walk up on them to pick your shot.

In my younger days I assisted in killing a rabid bulldog with a 22lr. It took 9 shots in the chest at very close range before this mad dog dropped the pet it attacked and then at least 4 more shots from a 22rifle before the beast finally died. Trust me when I say you dont wish to be attacked in the manner the rabid dog was attacking my friends pet, and the shots were being made as the opportunity allowed free from the chance of hitting his own dog. I only wish on that day I had carried something which could have stopped that event after the first shot rather than the 12th.

Would you be willing to sit (not stand, not run) in the path of a angy bull, bear, hog with a 22rifle and feel confident in your ability to drop him if needed.

I have seen how well a 22lr works on rabid dogs, and drugged up addicts, and I for one have little confidence in it for my own or anyone elses self protection.

[postoak]

Well, this thread has drifted all over the place, and I wasn't making any argument that the .22 LR makes a good defense weapon. It's as you said about Kuklinkski -- he would even put the pistol right against his victim's head, sometimes.

But, I've seen first hand how little penetrating ability this caliber has. When I was a feckless teenager, I took my father's .22 Colt Woodsman pistol and fired almost straight down into the sunbaked dirt of a country road, and was surprized to see the bullet bounce off the dirt after only penetrating 1/2". The fecklessness comes in because I repeated the experiment half a dozen times, with bullets bouncing back up a foot or two toward my head. Personally, I wouldn't trust it to penetrate even a human skull, consistently.

[Wismon]

Well, Just a Hunter, if we had a hit man forum I would have posted it there. Thankfully, though, we don't.

With regard to a .22 for self defense, I was referring to (or thinking of, at least) a head shot at handshake distance - sort of a last resort for a woman about to be attacked.

[Just a Hunter]

In that regard I will side with you in that any gun is better than no gun.

[Altjaeger]

Back in the 70's and 80's Guns & Ammo and Shooting Times periodically ran articles on .22 LR pistols as self-defense guns. At the time they recognized the effectiveness of brain shots but pointed out the smallness of the target in relation to the head. The preferred aiming point for stopping shots was the solar plexus at center of mass around the diaphragm with as many as you could pour in. I am not sure to this day why unless it was believed you would knock the wind out of them.:D

I am also a believer that the best self-defense gun is the one available when the need arises.

[dave-t.]

I don't know how tough you guys, or your local criminals are, but if I get shot, I'm changing my short term plans right now. Pip-squeek .22 or not.

[Just a Hunter]

As would I , but then again were both rational people.

In my local region reading of a breaking and entry while the residents are still home is becoming far to common.

This is not the actions of a rational person, but instead that of someone whom feels they can overpower you and have made the commitment to do such.