triggerguard1--

Forgings have sulfur, silica, and hydrogen "stringers" that seriously reduce grain boundary strength. Casting leaves these impurities in spherical form and so are much stronger in tension and compression at the same hardnesses.

Remember, high-speed steel cutting tools are cast, too.

There is a series of photos on the Acra-Bond website of the M99 action -- with barrel and in a stock -- as done for the '02 SHOT Show.

Click on Photo Gallery and scroll down.

http://www.acrabondlaminates.com/main.html

jim dodd

Kboom: for standard production long actions, the barrel threads are, to quote directly from the print: 1.0 (1.000)-16-UNF-2B .700 LE. (minor thread dia .934 +/- .002). We built a finished rifle for last year's ShotShow. It still has a prototype action bedded in it, so we haven't done the photo workup yet. Proto's are pretty enough, but they do have some faults that scream "wrong" to me. Hardly anybody else notices, but they make me cring.

Mingo: As Jack said, not a sand casting. We have tested to over 100,000 psi on casted prototypes (with ZERO setback). In addition, we proof test every action we ship using SAAMI certified proof loads in .270win and 300win.

Brass caseheads vaporize around 110,000. We've had some interesting results so far and some very supportive comments from H.P. White regarding the M1999 gas flange. In Chief Engineer Les Roan's opinion, the safest M70 style action they've tested. Further testing to destruction is scheduled for production units (which are stronger yet) early in 2003. We'll probably have to plug the barrels to get there. I think most folks are going to be somewhat surprised about how well an investment casting performs.

Castings vs. Forgings.

Static specs say forgings have the edge. But not by a huge margin. But, as Jack Belk just pointed out, there are other issues.

Talk is cheap and there's not a lot more to be said at this point as conjecture is meaningless. We'll put the money up and get some empirical results in a recognized and respected lab environment. I'll be happy to share them.

triggerguard1--

I'd agree that Ruger is the best in the business of investment casting.......I'd also say their guns sure as hell don't show it!! They're unbelievably crude, to my way of thinking.

A CNC machined casting is, in my view, just as good as a CNC machined forged part. The problems start when parts are designed to fit together *as cast*.

I've seen some very good gun parts made from castings......old (numbered block) Ruger Number Ones were as good an action as I've seen......then they started a long slide of tightning the tolorences of the castings in order to do away with the finish machining steps. By 1980 the Number One was just another action that needed more work than it's worth to be useable.

As far as forgings and strength--- just ask any gunsmith what's the most common FRACTURED (blown up) action they see. It'll be the pre-64 Winchester M-70 by a wide margin. And if you've ever cut one apart you've seen the voids and inclusions that remind you a lot of rebar! They're truly nasty!!

Tolorences are tolorences, no matter how they're developed or attained. The secret is making them SMALL. Unfortunately, there will probably never be another hand fitted action like the double heat treat '03, 1898 Krag, Commercial Mauser, or pre-war M-70. It's too labor intensive.
The actions made by CNC machining pre-heat treated and stress relieved barstock come VERY close, though.

I just put together my first M70 Featherweight using one of the "brand-new" actions we acquired to reverse engineer some of the footprint features.

The barrel boresights 37 INCHES low at 100 yards.

Sigh. So much for quality machining. (of forgings or otherwise). Good thing Burris makes signature rings with inserts. My LPS scope ran out of elevation at three inches low.

Probably receiver ring face. Or receiver ring face AND a bunch of metal polished off the rear bridge.

The point is that it's pointless to look at factory stuff (Remington, Ruger, Winchester or other) and say, "It's the metalurgy!" when its all about margins, aging tooling, and sustainable scrap rates.

Factory tolerances are low because they have to be. Look at it from their point of view. The Market is static to slightly shrinking. The only marketshare to be had must be ripped out of your competitor. The only way to do that is to come with new features and/or to undersell. New features and decreasing margins are contraindicated. I would HATE to be in the retail space.

On the other hand, their woes are our salvation. The more the retail products suffer from cost cutting and quality issues, the larger the custom space becomes - provided the mid-range buyer can afford the custom product. And that is our niche. People who want $10,000+ guns are already served. People who want $2500 custom guns are not. And there are a hundred times as many of the latter.

So we'll start with a casting because it is an economical platform for our market. We'll machine the dickens out of it where it counts. And hold tolerances tight where it counts. And add in the best features you guys ask for. Make sure LH and Short and Super Magnum (and mini's) get covered. None of it rocket science. Just a lot of attention to detail and a lot of listening to the customer base.

Thanks Jack for the investment casting 101. I did mean to say investment casting and not sand casting. Sometimes, my typing and my mind go seperate way for some reason. Anyway, I have worked with die casting, sand casting, and investment casting so I have some experience in this area. It is good that you put it in detail so everybody new to this casting technology now has some idea about it.

Rod,
I think it is better to have a third lug on the bolt just like the original Mauser for your PH version. Since the PH will be for the big bore cartridges, it would be better to biff it up as much as possible. I already have a couple of big bore wildcats in mind with your PH action so I hope that you guys will finalize the design soon.

Jack,
Can you give us your honest opinion as for the third recoil lug on the bolt? Is this a good feature to have for the extra safety insurance? Thanks.

Mingo---

I don't think an alloy steel action needs a third lug. It's there so a Mauser will only go so far in excess headspace, but will still shoot without killing the soldier holding it. In reality, it has no use in a modern commercial action.

The third lug on a M-98 is a carry-over from another time......like belts on cartridge cases that have a useable shoulder.

By the way... I have a Mauser shotgun that uses the safety lug as the only locking lug. the fronts are cut away for clearance so it'll feed a 16 ga shell.

Jack,

I don't think I would want to shoot your shotgun even though it is safe. Thanks.

Rod--
Lest you think your outreach and receptivity to comment is a waste of your valuable time, your company in general, and action specifically, have impressed me and many folks I respect around here lately. I'm currently offloading several rifles and anticipate placing an order this winter. Proud to have a company like yours here locally. Any plans for a finished signature MRC rifle?--might not make you rich but may pay off in PR. One question. I know you're trying to replicate the M70 footprint as closely as possible--does this hold for the "super mini (?)" WSM action? Would it cross with the SA M70 or is it an intermediate design. Non standard sizes dramatically affect stocking costs as you well know. Thanks again.

Snowcat: It's hardly a waste of time. The LA is where it is because of input from both custom builders and from their customers. It's a M98/M70 hybrid for the same reason. My most valuable time are the hours I spend "reading" the marketplace, here and elsewhere.

As to the M70 footprint, it applies to the LA and the SA in both left and right hand. The mini (.223 type) and the PH go anywhere "we" (collectively) want as there is no aftermarket stock or scope base issue to consider. On the PH, we're now centering on a square bridge design. The CAD guys are busy with a M21 BRNO right now and the new files should be done by the 27th or so.

Sorry, no finished rifles guys. Our chief customer is the custom gunsmith and we're not about to compete with them.

Long LH development: Thought folks might be interested in this photo. Here we're creating wax models of the receivers that will be cast by Ruger as working prototypes. This is 3D printing directly from CAD work through STL files. Neat stuff.

Rod,

It looks like you guys are making good progress with all the actions. I suppose that the wax models were created with a rapid prototyping machine. Did you have this done outside or you guys got your own 3D printer? Please post some pictures of your PH action when you have it ready. Thanks.

Mingo: We did the first two LA right-hand protos on an outside machine. They cost over a grand apiece and we had to wait 2-3 weeks to get scheduled time. After that, it wasn't hard to justify purchasing our own machine. We do some service bureau work on the RPS machine when no MRC stuff is scheduled. It took about eighty hours to complete those two receivers. The bolts are on now and three of them will take sixty more.

We'll put up some screenshots of the SolidWorks part files on the PH near the end of the month. Left and right hand short bolts & receivers are scheduled next for the RP system...then the PH in LH & RH.

Hey Rod, if your looking for a couple of "field testers" for those PH actions, I'll voulanteer and think Mingo will too.

I'll take mine in a 505 Gibbs.

Please enlighten me on the following design/patent related questions.

I am not sure how many actual patents did Mauser file for their action but are there any of the Mauser patents still in effect today? Also, did Winchester file a patent for their famous three-position safety system? Is it (patent) still current? Now for the cartridges, a cartridge like the 416 Rigby was a proprietary chambering so how did CZ or Ruger get by chambering a proprietary cartridge?

I was wondering if a company like CZ or MRC would need to pay some sort of loyalty fee for manufacturing a product that has been patented before. These are some of the issues that have been puzzling my mind so any insight will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[ 11-19-2002, 07:57: Message edited by: Mingo ]

Mingo: all the patents Peter Paul had are over a century old and long gone. If I remember right, Springfield (in the middle of WWI) had to pay royalties to the guys in the other trenches.

Same with M70, which is an outgrowth from M54, which is outgrowth from "mumble-mumble", the original attempt by Winchester to sell bolt actions to the army.

Nothing we've done is patentable either. Anyone can copy any or all of the features of the M1999. All it takes is money.

Rod,

Nice actions. What is the thread dia. and tennon length on the PH? I hope it will be LARGE for longer, say 36", and heavier barrels without always needing a barrel block.

Will you be able to machine a twenty to forty MOA tapored Weaver rail on top for long range use, like Prarie Gun Works Timberwolf action?

When will the RH PH be ready to ship? Before next march I'm hoping.

Thanks

Thanks Rod for the info. I guess that all patented features of the Mauser and M-70 are "copyable". Now you guys at MRC need to come up with something totally new to shock the rifle world.

Part two: As far as proprietary reamers go, usually the reamer manufacturers that have the specs for a current proprietary cartridge (say like a JD Jones cartridge) will not share the engineering info. They direct you back to the "owner" of the design to secure a reamer if the owner will allow it. A 416 Rigby is a SAAMI cartridge, in the public domain.

Now, if a large retail manufacturer decided they wanted to incorporate the M1999 into their product line, and we agreed to let them use our molds (thereby saving them well into six figures of development costs), we would expect a royalty per casting, and probably a relatively small one. It's all about mutual advantage.

Brent: You've caught me at home and away from my engineering repository. So I'll have to shoot from memory.

The thread diameter is larger than the LA which is 1.000-16. The receiver ring went up in diameter by .150 to 1.500 and I believe we spec'd 1.125 as the thread diameter with a LE of .750, or maybe .850. We will be extending the ring well forward and the recoil lug with it, to get a LOT of wood or whatever between the lug and the guard screw.

"YOU" will be able to machine a long range ramp. We're going to leave an extra .025 on top of the design height of the square bridges - which will in and of themselves offer some options. There are so many alternatives with square bridges, we're just going to leave them blank.

The first iteration of the PH design will be out of CAD just before Thanksgiving. Will it be right? (laughs here). I suspect we'll have to tweek it a couple of weeks, but then we have to get a move on to have prototypes ready for the Shot Show. Here's the crunch. It takes 22-26 weeks to get a good first article once you start mold development. Add another 30 days for the first limited production run after first article. March of 2003? Not unless we invent a time machine first. We grossly underestimated the mold development time in the LA. (9-10 weeks) Nobody was happy about that.

With a good clean plan, late summer.

....something totally new to shock the rifle world.

Now isn't that an interesting idea.

Rod... is this action in stainless suitable for a 500 A^2 ?
Take care
smallfry

Rod,

I don't know how ready the rifle world is for totally new ideas. My favorite example is Jeff Cooper's scout rifle concept, and the instantiation of it in the Steyr Scout.

I have one in .308 Win, and hunt with it a lot, but it gets lots of looks and questions at the range.

jim dodd

In a way, looking at wonderful old ideas and seeing if new technology can resurrect them is a fine challenge too.

Spent much of the day yesterday sectioning receiver castings on a bridgeport at Ruger. .020 passes with a half-inch end mill. Porosity appears to be non-existant in both alloys, probably because of the superb gating design that Pine Tree came up with.

Alchemy 101: with the wax held at 141 degrees and 350 psi applied to the feed line, and dwell time increased to 20 seconds, have we balanced the shrinkage rates between 4140 and 415 stainless perfectly? Monday, we'll know.

It's great to see the Matsuura holding 2-3 tenths to the nominal, but is also clear we have to temper a little more on the 415 to cut the chatter during the slot cutting operations. Tomorrow, (Sat) the last of the programming changes should be done and then the chips will fly.

Rod,

Sectioning the casting may not be good enough to examine porosity problems. Did you guys look into x-raying the casting? Please keep the progress going with the PH version as we big bore shooters are anxious for it's release. Thanks!

Rod,

I spoke with a gunsmith who is highly reguarded up here about your actions, asked him what he thought of them. His name is Homer Strickland at Accuracy Arms in Anchorage. He liked them, but had already purchaced one for inspection having you hold his check until completed, checked it out on the lathe and said he returned it after he found eleven different things wrong with it and was not satisfied with the work on it. He said the lugs were machined but only one of them made contact. He had made a list when he returned it with the other things that were in the same type of condition, some worse than others but all related to QC.

I am not saying they are not worth the money or anything of the sort, but his oppinion in the area is pretty highly reguarded in the Gunsmith world. Nothing slips by this guy. His opinion was, they still need alot of work to make straight and true etc.

What do you know of this action he checked and returned?

Brent: This is news to me. To my knowledge, only four preproduction actions were sent out for technical review. All had some issues as many of the components were not even heat-treated yet. I sent a letter with each action detailing the issues we still had to solve, and the folks I wrote to did not include Homer Strickland. In early October, the issue list was long and eleven or so items sounds about right. In mid november, the list was down to three items: the initial castings required us to hand lap in the lugs, .473 extractor profile needed a little more work, and the early bolts have a slight over-rotation problem.

Starting with #1013, the new receiver castings have material on the lug engagement area that is machined off in the same operation as when the threads, mauser collar, and receiver ring are done. This was one of the changes I was back east to be sure was implemented correctly. The bolt root geometry has been altered to solve the rotation problem and we (as of 11/21/02) redefined the extractor profile for better retention of 30-06 case head cartridges.

As to Mr. Strickland's review, it could be our Sales manager, Dan, who is currently in Arizona, sent one to Accuracy Arms. I'll check on this when he returns next week and, if so, look for Homer's feedback. Thanks for the heads up.

Mingo: The sectioning was intended to examine the effects of some shell techniques used to cast the mauser collar inside the receiver ring. What we noted was an unusually coherant surface on each cut, even when they were polished. This is not to say porosity is non-existant, but rather a pleasantly insignificant issue, at least in the castings we destroyed.

We (Ruger actually) does 100% magnaflux, which will detect defects that reach the surface of the part. It's my understanding that X-ray is not commercially feasible outside the aerospace industry as the piece price of parts would be unacceptably high and yet the problem is cosmetic in nature and requires repair in less than 1% of the product.

Usually, a small pit (.010 to .015 in diameter) is uncovered in the polishing process. The repair consists of weldment, a treatment where the local area surrounding the pit is brought to a molten state (TIG welding) and then exact alloy rod is deposited to make a solid bubble of metal, which is then polished flush. The casting then goes through normal heat treat with no ill effects.

Brent: I spoke with Homer Strickland at Accuracy Arms today. He has NOT seen one of our actions, although he would very much like to. Especially in left hand. He did mention a recent lefty USRAC M70 he had inspected and found it unsuitable to build a custom rifle upon. Could we have a communication snafu on these two reports? Check with Homer and he'll set the record straight.

Rod,

Thanks for running that down and for posting the results. I am still waiting for my first action to ship, so it was a matter of no small interest to me.

Also your running commentary on the trials and tribulations of bringing the action from prototype to production is really interesting! Please keep it up.

thanks...

jim dodd

Rod,

He liked them, but had already purchaced one for inspection having you hold his check until completed, checked it out on the lathe and said he returned it after he found eleven different things wrong with it and was not satisfied with the work on it. He said the lugs were machined but only one of them made contact. He had made a list when he returned it with the other things that were in the same type of condition, some worse than others but all related to QC.

This is exactly what Homer told me as he was looking for a brochure of yours he said you sent him, not something I made up, I'm sure of that, period, end of story.

A conversation of production tolerances vs. those of MRC (+-.001") were what led to the statements he made. We never discussed the M70 at all. My father was standing right next to me and heard the whole thing too, he wants one of your actions also, we were both a little disappointed to hear of Homers inspection, which obviously never took place.

To put this in perspective, he has about $20,000. worth of benchrest actions setting there for sale of all brands, Stolle, Bat, Hall etc. etc. of which he went on to say the Bat was the best he'd ever used to date and was building one up for himself that costs $1900. for the action itself with the integral 20MOA base. He likes the best there is, truely a perfectionist.

I don't know how many other people he has told the same thing as he did my father and I, but it is good you called him on it.

I will be calling him, no doubt it won't go well, it's probably pointless though, some people are just the way they are.

Word travels faster than most people figure it will in todays world.

Last thing that MRC needs is bad press from someone that hasn't even held one of their actions, especially from someone well respected by so many in the buisness.

Brent: I truly appreciate your bringing the issue to light. Had you not, it might have gathered a lot of momentum.

Could still turn out to be an unfortunate "he said - she said" mess. Let's hope not.

HunterJim: I am told by the chief magician running the Matsuura, that the first wave of receivers and bolts will be done by Monday. I suspect yours is one of those. Stops midway between here and NH for polishing, and then to us for inspection. We'll send those that have a green light on to heat treat. A week turn around. Assemble, proof, engrave, buff and ship.

The second wave (of this really big order) is expected from Ruger on the 20th of December. Machining is set to begin on the 6th of January. We'll probably see that one in batches of fifty or so with each shipment.

I started left hand Short Action receivers on the RPS system yesterday. The LH Long receivers are at Ruger and the LH Long bolts are in dewax here at MRC. Before anyone gets too excited, these are prototypes and we can't sell them. But they are part of a planned campaign to bring the LH in both SA and LA to production.

Stainless: would that all things work smoothly. Nothing will grit your teeth so quickly as to hear a thread mill try to cut this obnoxious stuff. And this at Rc 24. Also, we can't quite achieve the same shrinkage on 415 stainless as exhibited on 4140. Close, but not the same. About .020 more over the whole length of the receiver. Strangely enough, the bolt does not shrink any differently. The only effect is we'll have to relieve the safety lug just a bit for the bolt handle. All the important stuff is machined in place so the shrinkage issue will have no effect on cosmetics or function.

PH: I'll start a new thread as soon as we have something to post (week of 12/2?). The Professional Hunter is not really a M1999 action, having been conceived in 2001 and designed in 2002. It also wanders quite far afield from the M70-M98 Hybrid concept. It certainly will not fit in a M70 stock, nor use M70 scope bases. We'll probably move very quickly to RPS but the design is expected to evolve for the next 8-10 weeks before we do the initial product drawings.

Rod,

This was the first time my father and I had ever met Homer personally, he was a likable, knowledgable guy and we gave it no thought, until you posted you spoke with him personally, that he was less than honest with us. Personally I'm shocked, probably nieeve is why, but I wonder how many other people accross the land act like this as well. How much good press does it take to overcome a little bad like this, I'd say alot. I hope the "LOTS of good press" is a top priority for you so the record STARTS OFF RIGHT. It will pay off BIG if the splash is BIG.

Concerning the PH, is there a certain action you have in mind that stocks are made for already, that will be easily used with little mods?

Brent: I'm unwilling to pass judgement here. There are just too many plausible explanations. Like, he was thinking of some other action when he answered your question. Like he was thinking of some other action when he answered my question. I'm still going to check with Dan when he comes in tomorrow to make sure we never sent one to Alaska. In the end, I am willing to send one of the third wave up to Homer and let him do a review. After watching how these receivers measured up on the QC bench while machining, it should be good news. Like he does you, Homer strikes me as a friendly knowledgable guy.

As for your second question, I'm not sure what stock profile would fit the PH. Maybe after some folks get a chance to take a look at the action profile, they'll make some suggestions.

Rod,

How is the PH action size wise compare to the CZ 550 Safari action? If they are similar in size, then the McMillan Express stock should fit just fine. May I suggest that you send McMillan a sample when it's ready so they can take all the dimensions and enter into their computer for inlett programming. If their Express stock can be inletted to fit your action then they will likely to be one of the mainstream sources for stock for your PH action. Thanks!

I believe people can get confused, even about new actions I guess. Seems odd though. I wonder what new action he had it confused with? He didn't tell my father when he called him yesterday to appoligize and say he must have been mixed up about the one he was talking about. My father called yesterday morning to say he called and was pretty appoligetic over it. I'll wait till tomarrow and call him, maybe he remembers which new action they held the check on that had all the problems he refered to, I don't know if he recalled and mentioned it to you or not.

I'll concede it is possible.

Appreciate the info on the stock too. My father is waiting for the LH action, he really likes the design, and the price too. Look foreward to the latest on them.

Mingo: Good idea re: loaning receiver metal to McMillan. We should have proto's in metal for the ShotShow and leaving one with them afterward makes sense.

As for the CZ550 Safari action, I don't have one to measure, but I'll bet the magazine doesn't measure 4.025in long (internally), We did have a customer's in house several weeks ago. It had the bolt face opened up for the .590 cartridge, but the bolt was standard diameter (about .700). Since the 416 Rigby is the medium bore for the PH, we went with a .805in bolt diameter. The front ring is 1.505 with 1.125 threads - 16tpi, .750LE. The magazine frame will be expanded to give us machinable width for four-in-the-box for the .416Rigby.