They both have goods and bads about them.

Remingtons receiver is machined from a solit billet of steel while Rugers is cast. Actually, almost everything on a Ruger is cast.

Remingtons extractor is crap IMHO while Ruger has a massive claw extracttor.

Remington has an easily adjustable and workable trigger while Ruger has one of the worst triggers in the business and requires much more work or an aftermarket trigger to get to acceptable standards.

Ruger has an integrated recoil lug while Remington uses a recoil lug sandwiched between the barrel and the receiver. Better to have the barrel mate up and torqued directly to the receiver

Rugers receiver has a flat bottom for a more stable platform while Remingtons receiver is round and is easier to move around.

Ruger has machined into thier receiver slots for rings to fir while a Remington is drilled and tapped. While Rugers are certainly one of the strongest systems I personally I prefer the drill and tap to rugers system. I just allows more options when mounting a scope.


If I had to shoose one I would choose the Remington. All in all I think it is a better rifle and easier to work with than a Ruger.

However I think that a Howa is a better rifle than either one. It has many of the best traits of many different rifles. Such as flat bottomed receiver with an integrated recoil lug machined from a solit billet of steel, a massive M16 type extractor, Remingtons famous "three rings of steel" design, a one piece bolt machined from a solit billet of steel with three gas ports, an adjustable and easily workable trigger.