Ruger 77 mk II 7mm rem mag, 1984 never been fired, bore sighted, tasco scope, synthetic stock, looks brand new $400.00
---or---
Ruger 77 mk II 300 win mag, 1984 never been fired, bore sighted, tasco scope, wood stock, looks brand new $400.00

Queston 1. Would you have any problems with a rifle that old?

Question 2. Would that metal be a better quality of metal used in 1984?

Question 3. Are there any parts of the Rifles that I should inspect for aging problems?

Question 4. Is 400.00 too much?


Thanks in advance,
Jeaux

Calm hand... Clean shot...

come'on yall got some opinions

If the gun is never shot, it is essentially new. Not sure the quality of the scope, but if it is pretty good, sounds like an OK price.

I would not worry about the age, it is irrelevant. One thing to check though, is what recalls there may be on that particular gun. I have a M77 made in around 1987-1988. It had a recall on the safety linkage. No charge to get it fixed.

I like the safety much better than the ones they use now.

I would go with the 30 cal. and the wood stock. What does a new one run?

Question 1: No

Question 2: No

Question 3: No

Question 4: Yes, give me the man's name and number and I will be sure that he does not offer you these rifles at such a ridiculous amount again.

No, seriously, from what you have described I would buy them both.

1. No

2. No

3. I would look everything over carefully, but there shouldn't be any problems, especially if the gun has never been fired.

4. I wouldn't think so.

Choice of calibers is a personal preference. I'd prefer BOTH!

I am also thinking the same as UncleNorby, in that the scopes are probably not my pick of the litter. I'd probably try to negotiate a cheaper price on just the gun, then put a Nikon, Leupold, Zeiss, etc. on top of it.

If I had to choose I would probably say the 300 only because I dont like the synthetic stocks on Rugers, I have five M77's and all are wood or laminate wood. A new M77 around here is about $460-$480, to give you an idea.