Background, I recently learned (after my purchase) that Ruger uses investment cast process to cast. Yes it is different from conventional cast. However, that difference is simply the process allows for a greater range of steels to be used (stainless, titanium etc), with greater detail (small parts with greater accuracy - better finish), not in strength. Cast steel, regardless of the process, is never as strong as forged. Argument I read is if its 'good enough for planes' - but it isnt, planes use forged for all areas requiring strength, and just like cars, not all planes are built equal. I have found some forum threads on other forums that mention the Ruger No1 proven to withstand 200PSI, yet, there is NO documented evidence. And even if this were the case, that does not prove the (cast v forged) argument. There is no argument, its simple fact, forged is far stronger than cast as the forging process strengthens steel.
For those that dont know, Ruger uses cast for EVERYTHING except the barrel (because cast could never provide the tensile strength required) I cant stress this enough. A cast trigger guard etc I can live with. But, every little piece of steel Ruger uses is CAST. Bolt, Receiver, extractor claw (really Ruger?) down to the detailed of the safety switch. Unimpressed? The cost savings from cast isnt enough for greedy Ruger to bother applying a small amount of machining to remove cast marks. The Ruger Hawkeye range comes in at about $1800 for their cheapest variant. Pick one up, look at it properly, cast marks on bolt handle etc. The inside of receiver has a very raw finish, its like sliding a bolt on 80 grit sand paper. A very cheaply manufactured rifle with a premium price. I do not know of a rifle brand that is finished in such poor craftsmanship and quality.
If the cast marks on every part of the rifle other than the barrel were not bad enough, the stock was not machined in properly to leave a large gap around the receiver. wood stain (yes it is stained) was on the Ruger badge on the bottom of the grip and grain was still porous. Yes the bolt handle has the flakey casting marks on it as does the whole bolt. It is not a effect in the image.
In summary issue with the Ruger hawkeye M77 range:
1. pitting marks from cast found on pretty much everything except barrel.
2. inside of receiver as rough as grinding gravel
3. cast mold marks on everything except barrel
4. poor stock fitting
5. stock stained with Zero QQ (NOT OILED FINISH).
For an almost $2000 rifle, if your happy with the above, go ahead, otherwise look elsewhere.... And literally anywhere else. Compared to a $600 Howa, the Howa looks like a level up in craftsmanship...
This will be the first and last Ruger I will ever purchase. If you look at Ruger Hawkeye M77 images from the internet (even Ruger website) and look at the bolt handle ring where it meets up with the Bolt, be prepared to have that finish across everything that isnt machined (pretty much only the outside surface of the receiver - pitting from cast marks.
See images below. Compare this to any of the rifles you have at home not made by Ruger and tell me if you would pay $2k for this level of QC.
Rifle has been sent to NIOA under warranty, I would not accept a $2k rifle in this condition.
