Anyone have any thoughts between these two? I am looking at a 270 Win or 280 Rem for deer and larger game. I like the new Stainless Featherweight in 270 that is coming out (sometime this year) and I also like the Ruger M77 MkII Sporter in either caliber. I think these two are (or will be) both great guns but I am looking for more opinions. Is it worth waiting for the Winchester to be availible? Are they both reliable and accurate?

Thanks for your time!

CK

It's all about which fits you better. Personally I'd get the ruger and have the trigger worked on. And i do like the ruger lamanated stocks.

I've got an '06 Winchester XTR Featherweight and two Ruger M77's in .243 and 7mm.

I've had nothing but great experiences from all of them, they all shoot and feel great in my hands.

The only real differences between them that I have noticed is that if you want a little better fit and finish go with the Winchester. If you want to save well over a $100 for a good head start on a good scope or something, then you won't be disappointed in the Ruger.

LY

Both are excellent rifles. I'd go with whatever one you like best. Personally, I'm looking
forward to checking out one of those Winchester Featherweights with the stainless barrel/action myself, and in 270Win., too (or maybe 6.5x55).

I just looked at both and bought the Ruger. BUT, I liked the safety on the Winchester better. It was larger and, for me, easier to engage/disengage. I really didn't see a huge difference in the fit and finish between the two and was rather unimpressed with several (of both makes) that I looked at. I guess you really have to pick and choose. A Winchester M70 was about $180 more than the Ruger here. I didn't see the justification for the cost difference.

I own a Ruger but being a southpaw I tend to support those who support those of us who have that affliction. My Ruger is a shooter and has been a work horse through the years. But as someone else has said, I don't think you'll go wrong with either so for you it will go down to what fits both you and your wallet.

The ruger will be far more accurate out of the box then the Winchester. It simply has a better barrel. The trigger will have to be replaced for it to be as good as a Remington or a Winchester though. In the past it meant a Timney but I understand that Jard and riflebasix now make replacement triggers which are easier to install. The winchester has a bigger safety but not necessarily smoother safety. If you buy the SS ruger you will have to get the barrel bead blasted to reduce glare. You get better scope rings with the Ruger and out of the 2 I would say the Ruger is more rugged. Take your pick

You know, I have never liked Ruger. But went shooting with a guy called Mossyoak on here. And every freaking 77 he pulled out he was shooting subMOA. I just shook my head. I thought they were supposed to be fairly inaccurate.

I have a Ruger 77 MKII in 300 WSM and it will shoot a .6" group at 100 yards with my 180gr handloads. My #1 7x57 mauser will shoot under 1" also. Ruger also comes with rings and the bases are machined as part of the action. I just ordered a Ruger 77 MK II in .223. I like Ruger for their accuracy, price and quality. I think Ruger has some very nice walnut stocks on their $500 off the shelf rifles.

As for caliber I would go with 30-06 it will do everything the .270 and 280 will cheaper with more bullet options and weights.

I am not married to any one brand of rifle. I think the legend of Ruger's inaccuracy comes from the time period when they outsourced their barrels. Some were outstanding shooters while others were dogs. My understanding is Ruger invested in their own barrel making machinery 8-10 years ago and the accuracy has been more consistent. I own an older tang safety Ruger that shoots shotgun like groups. Hopefully my new one is better.

I agree with Gundigest. When you add the rings you have a pretty decent firearm in the $500 range.