SS-McFW stock: Montana 350mag

I personally have a real issue with people using the word beautiful and synthetic stock or stainless steel in the same paragraph.
Maybe purposeful, or serious DGR...but beautiful requires wood, preferably circassian walnut that looks molded to the barreled action and well checkered. The 375 Butch Searcy has for sale in the classifieds is beautiful...this is serious looking...

JMHO

Rich
DRSS

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
I personally have a real issue with people using the word beautiful and synthetic stock or stainless steel in the same paragraph.
Maybe purposeful, or serious DGR...but beautiful requires wood, preferably circassian walnut that looks molded to the barreled action and well checkered. The 375 Butch Searcy has for sale in the classifieds is beautiful...this is serious looking...

JMHO

Rich
DRSS

Agreed 100% beautiful and synthetic and stainless steel just dont go together.

..wish it said how much it weighs scope rounds and all...

Bob

You boys need about one good season crawling around in the snowbrush and freezing rain in North Idaho to understand what is truly beautiful about stainless/synthetic rifles. Nevertheless, I did not call it beautiful, someone else did. I just call it one of my hunting rifles. The stock has been gritted-up and painted since that photo in Bonners was taken. CP.


It weighs in with the scope at 7lbs and a little change.

nt

didn't say I didn't like it, just said it was more along the lines of functional than ornamental. Besides, I live in Idaho, and have had no issues to speak of with blued steel and wood in 28 years of big game hunting here. Neither did either of your neighbors Elmer Keith or Jack O'Connor in over 100 years, combined, of hunting with walnut and blued steel.

Let's just call them esthetically challenged and go from there...?

Rich
DRSS

beauty is in the eyes of the beholder

quote:

Originally posted by tr 405:
beauty is in the eyes of the beholder

Agreed, even Ugly fat women get takers!.....Uh, slipped, anyone back on guns that 350 is NICE and functional, now I LOVE NICE wood and blued steel, but I like the virtual worry free SS if you get in the field in the rain/moisture, and you just don't have to worry about wiping it down always and worrying about blueing wear, I really find it attractive combining nice wood or laminate stocks with SS, but Synthetics rule by not worrying about dinging and scratching, so you use them for the tool they are designed to do, go afield and enjoy. Now that aside, it is nice sitting in the field admiring what you are holding-your firearm. Synthetics don't give you the warm and fuzzy but you don't have to baby them.

I have both wood/blue and syn/ss, and even a wood/ss.

Pretty is nice, but my guns MUST shoot, and they all do that well.

I am a wood and blue guy, too,
But I would not be anything but proud of that .305 rem mag. I think there is a different kind of beauty to a functional rugged dependable rig like that.
There are other rifles on that link I like better though.
I,ll take wayne vanswol's Roberts.
And there is a DGR rifle on there that has little info on there about it but it has a strait tube scope. It is nice...tj3006

The .275 looked nice.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
I personally have a real issue with people using the word beautiful and synthetic stock or stainless steel in the same paragraph.

Beauty is as beauty does.

Would also add, the "lines" of a rifle are more important to my eye to ascertain "beauty" than the materials. I've seen gorgeous wood on many custom rifles that I wouldn't own because the lines aren't right.

The lines on CP's 350 are extremely pleasing to my eye... a practical weapon has a beauty all its own and cosmetic flourishes do nothing for me on a rifle designed to kill chit.

Also, I've handled Chris's 350 RM pictured and can say without hesitation it's one of the finest balanced, killing weapons I've ever had my mitts on. I've only handled a couple rifles that had the same feel, one of which was my SS M70 30-06 set up nearly identical to CP's 350 RM.

My .02...

quote:

Originally posted by CP:
...It weighs in with the scope at 7lbs and a little change.

CP, not to be a cheeky bastard, but from memory:
MontanaSa ....2.5lb
2.5-8x+mounts 1.0lb
McFW..........2.0lb
For your rig to be 7lb, the barrel would be ....1.5lb??

Sometimes you just see a setup and know thats its right. I would buy such a rig in confidence,cause it sets off that warm fuzzy feeling,and thats the one you should trust,despite the rifle itself being clinical ss&syn.
No doubt a reasonably user friendly rig that means business.

Just because you don't like the look of a syn rifle doesn't mean you have to pizz in the cheerios of the guy who had it built. I've seen plenty of ugly wooden/blued rifles.

I'm quite fond of the 350 rem mag and your lightweight Montanna looks very nice.

I'll take a plastic rifle over plastic tits anyday

Thanks Brad

Woodjack, I am sorry, but I don’t have a postal scale handy to validate this rifle’s weight. However, if my memory serves me, she is right at 7. 4 lbs (the .4 is in my “change†comment above) with the scope. First, I believe that the action was closer to 2.3 lbs, and I then had the magazine box skeletonized. I also asked McMillan to give me the lightest fill possible in a Winchester Classic SA Featherweight stock, and Dennis whittled it down to accept the M1999 action. I cannot say that this dropped much weight, but it certainly did not add any. The barrel is .630†at the muzzle. However, where I believe that I really shed some weight was having Dennis turn the shank down 1.184†and playing the taper out within 6†or so from the receiver, which gave me about 16†of straight tube. It also has wears Leupold QRs and low rings. CP

CP,
yes that makes sense, Being closer to 7.4lb.
i didnt know one could specify a Mcstock like you did. Although when I spoke to Mr.Brown Precision about a Kevlarpounder' he said he could go through his non-kevlar stocks to find one that was a lighter fill in the batch, so I could have a glass stock almost as light as kevlar, but without the more intense transfer of recoil of a Kevlar.
A 7x57 almost identical to your .350m would go nice as well.

WJ

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
I personally have a real issue with people using the word beautiful and synthetic stock or stainless steel in the same paragraph.

Beauty is as beauty does.

Would also add, the "lines" of a rifle are more important to my eye to ascertain "beauty" than the materials. I've seen gorgeous wood on many custom rifles that I wouldn't own because the lines aren't right.

The lines on CP's 350 are extremely pleasing to my eye... a practical weapon has a beauty all its own and cosmetic flourishes do nothing for me on a rifle designed to kill chit.

Also, I've handled Chris's 350 RM pictured and can say without hesitation it's one of the finest balanced, killing weapons I've ever had my mitts on. I've only handled a couple rifles that had the same feel, one of which was my SS M70 30-06 set up nearly identical to CP's 350 RM.

My .02...

Brad, didn't you ALSO sell the '06 and had a 308 the same way?

If Ruger or Rem made That type of rifle, say a 700/7/77 with that length barrel, sights/syn stock, I think it would sell VERY well in 350 and likely 358 and some 338F's.

I would buy at least 1. An MRC custom would not be a bad way to go considering all costs, and the action looks nice, brother's 270WSM shoots well, seem a little heavy, like a Dakota action, lots of STEEL it seems, not a bad thing.