As for closing the floorplate, the same thing could be said about the M70 too. The aluminum trigger guard is cheap, flemsy and needs adjusting on many M70's out of the box.

On the cast vs. forged issue, one thing I've never liked about Rugers is the bolts tend to bind easier than on most rifles. Is this one of the down falls of a cast action or just a design flaw of the M77?

Terry

Which newly manufactured bolt actions are not cast besides the Remington?

NRC does have a niche with actions for left handers and magnums. They offer SS too and they all are CRF and good on gas handling.

I would still have mine if I did not need to get some lighter rifles. As to the investment castings I like them and think that they are a proper application for an action. Another thing is that I am just not a custom gun enthusiast.

I find the Kimber line the path of least resistance for me today. The folks at MRC are good people and I wish them well.

quote:

Which newly manufactured bolt actions are not cast besides the Remington?

The Model 70.

Chuck

quote:

Originally posted by Chuck Nelson:

quote:

Which newly manufactured bolt actions are not cast besides the Remington?

The Model 70.

Chuck

Look at this thread:

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9.../284106851#284106851

The cast recievers are actually in a minority.

just wanted to make a quick post to say thanks for all of the opinions, both pro and con. i have often found that opinions from ALL sides help in making decisions, and even some cons can reinforce a decision.

from my novice point of view, it looks as though the MRC takes the best of many good designs and combines them in order to create an action of impressive quality. as snowcat pointed out, safety was also a very important part of the design. what's not to love? i am sure that there are plenty out there that could be classified as "better," and maybe they are, who knows.... either way, i've found waht i've been looking for.

i've been pretty impressed with the MRc since i learned of it in 2003, and made it a goal then to get one. unfortunately, a bunch of stuff happened and my plans were psuhed back. now that things are back on track, i am in the market to actually begin this project, and see no reason to change my original choice of action; indeed, it looks as though there are more reasons now to get one than there were 2 years ago. price is a concern, quality another, but one of the biggest factors is class, and MRC, in my opinion, is rich in this area. when a rep from the companyu actually comes on and listens to the opinions of others, that is impressive. when he takes criticisms and uses them to try to make the product better than it is, that is outstanding.

keep the opinions and advice coming, and i will be sure to check out jbelk's site!:thumbs:

Chuck-
My bottom metal is finished (machined) beautifully and I heard when I purchased it that williams was doing the work (Matt????), In addition it has the "W" in a circle stamped in the inside. I don't care if a chimp made it, frankly, it's beautifully machined of billet steel and closes like either a swiss watch or the passenger door of a 69 Ford 3/4 ton, same thing, your choice. I'm not bashing M70's but dollar for dollar you simply get more by going with a MRC than you would stripping a M70, all things equal.

I hear (no experience here) that they make a good barrel too--gauged and lapped---I know that the with chamber and install the price is very reasonable, might be worth a look. Search on it as I remember some other guys posting some strong reviews of their tubes.

Original bottom metal was Williams, but didn't last long. You got one, but won't get another.

Chuck

Lucky me.

I think I will have to get one of these MRC actions and build a 404 with it.

.....and as the dust slowly settles to the ground a new wrestling match breaks out in another corner........404 vs 416

I bought two of the charter purchase short actions. One was bought as a barreled action in 25-284 and with the first load is a MOA shooter with 100 grain Barnes TSX.

The other is about to become a 350 Rem. Mag. I expect the same good results with this newest project.

I also believe if any problems occur with these actions MRC will stand behind them.

The simple act of having a representative respond to questions and issues on this board tells me they actually want to communicate with their customers.

When's the last time someone from "REMCHESTER" answered a question without a court order?

quote:

Originally posted by JeffMc:
I think I will have to get one of these MRC actions and build a 404 with it.

.....and as the dust slowly settles to the ground a new wrestling match breaks out in another corner........404 vs 416

The performance is roughly the same but the practicality is heavy on the side of the .416 RM. More bullets available.....more barrels available...standard dies, relatively cheap brass and ammo available, better reloading data available, and they all are .416 diameter. This is not the case with the .404.

I spoke with my gunsmith just this morning. My SS, LH, LA Magnum in 300WSM will be ready for handover this Wednesday or Thursday. He tells me the action is "straight as a string" and that putting a Krieger 1:10 barrel on it will provide me with endless fun for years to come. He used his best match reamer on it while still leaving the neck at standard size so I don't have to turn my cases.

I used a Richard's Micro-fit Thumbhole Target stock. He tells me there was so much inletting and wood removal to be done on the thing that if I ever brought him another one, he'd decline to take the job. I am going to sand out the exterior of the stock and then take it to a man my 'smith knows who will do the final finishing and painting. I expect delivery around the end of the summer.

My gunsmith, the great and well-respected Bob Sutton of Tussey Custom in Mound House, NV says he built a gun using a 1:10 Krieger that shot .425" at 200 yards. Not bad...

quote:

The performance is roughly the same but the practicality is heavy on the side of the .416 RM. More bullets available.....more barrels available...standard dies, relatively cheap brass and ammo available, better reloading data available, and they all are .416 diameter. This is not the case with the .404.

I understand but will pay the price to shoot a more historical cartridge - Really wasn't a wrestling match for me as I have always wanted a 404 "jus cuz" anyway BULLETS-quality bullets are available although not in great variety, BRASS/BARREL-the brass should last a while as it is a low pressure cartridge same for barrel, DATA-only one or two loads needed anyway, AMMO-will roll my own, DIES- the reloading dies now that is a problem.
thanks for your post and your info/opinion is right on the money as I have tried to talk myself out of the 404 for exactly those reasons but always fall back on "jus cuz".

I have one of the very early ones in the short, lefty configuration[003X]and the only thing I am not really impressed with is the weight. As one of the other guys said-- "N for building a light weight Mountain Rifle". Very true but will certainly make a nice custom 25 Souper or something. Heck, the price was right!!
Aloha, Mark

Bohica,
Yes weight is always a consideration. Our Long action weighs 48 Ounces with complete bottom metal compared to a Mod 70 (pre-64) 45.5 ounces (post 64 Standard) 44.3 ou., Enfield (1917) 48.2 ou., Rem 700 (standard) 38.1 ou., Ruger M77 (standard) 40.8 ou., Savage 110 ( stnadard) 37.5 ou., Springfield (1903) 44.3 ou., Weatherby Magnum Mark V 50.5 ou. and the Lightweight Mark V 40.5ou. And our Short Action is 44 ou. compared to Rem 700 Short 35.3 0u., Ruger M77 (short) 37.8 ou., Savage 110 (Short) 37.5 ou., and the Win Mod 70 Featherweight 42.6 ou. So yes our actions do weigh more however, In most "lightweight mountain rifles" that I have seen they are built up on an ADL type ( no bottom metal - or Aluminium or plastic BM). With that said you would actually take off 8 ounce from our Short Action and almost 10 ounces from our long action. That is in my opinon the majority of the weight difference. I got these figures from Shooting Times so I hope they are correct. I just finished building a lightweight rifle for my son like that(he only weighs about 75 lbs, 12 yrs old) and the finished Barreled action came to 4.2 lbs. Once I get the stock finished (lightweight Kevlar) I am hoping to have the Rifle without scope and rings at around 6 lbs. I'm not trying to discredit what you are saying, I agree, it is heavier. But it was designed that way for safety, and there are other options to make it lighter so I wanted to share that.

MontanaJeff, what's the status of the PH ?

I will be making an announcement on the PH's soon I hope. They have finished the design phase but I do not have the specs yet. We hope to have them and the mini (both Right handed versions first) done at the same time. The Mini design has not been completed so as soon as that is finished we hope to get them off to molds together.

Jeff-
Since Chuck brought it up, what's the deal with the "new" bottom metal. The Williams' piece was wonderful, are you jobbing out the subsequent pieces locally and are they still machined or have you gone to castings? Your feelings about the relative quality of the two versions? I am very pleased with my original purchases and would like to know about the current product line.

Appreciate it.

Snowcat,
While I cannot discuss our suppliers and policies on suppliers, I do agree that the Williams bottom metal is wonderful and are second to none. When the entire Model 1999 project got started there was one person making all the decisions as to what parts were used and where we got them. And if anyone out there can tell me what their own father's thought process is and what makes them tick, well please tell me the secret and I might be able to tell you what happened with that. haha just trying to add some humor into the day. To be honest I really do not know, my dad keeps alot of that info between himself and our new Operations Manager. I will say that our suppliers still machine the parts for the bottom metal and they are not cast.

I haven't contributed much in recent weeks so here goes!
As I have said repeatedly I don't consider the 1999 to be a bad action. I do think it could be better but I think the same of most actions. Some individual actions may exhibit some shortcomings but, again, the same is true of most actions. I have worked with some fairly high dollar custom actions which were seriously flawed.
The actions are relatively heavy but can easily lose about 2.5 ounces or more with no compromising of the integrity of the action.
Someone asked about breeching and the differences between the coned breech and the "H" and "C" ring breeching systems. To put it as simply as possible, not much!
In those rifles featuring a coned breech (like the M70, and the Springfield) the breech end of the barrel is coned (duhh!) and the likewise coned bolt nose fits into this. "Fits" is kind of a fugure of speech since the clearance is usually around .010". There is cut made for the extractor. The cone's primary function might be to facilitate feeding.
The "C" ring action (mauser 98) has an inner shoulder within the receiver ring against which the breech end of the barrel abuts. The inner diameter of this ring is large enough to allow the nose of the bolt to fit into it and nearly contact the barrel. Again, clearance is usually fairly generous. There is a notch cut through the ring on the right side for the extractor.
The "H" ring is much the same but has another notch opposite the notch for the extractor. This notch simplifies manufacture since it makes it possible to broach the locking lug raceways rather than cutting them with a shaper.
The perceived drawback to the "H" ring is that gas may vent directly into the left raceway in the event of a case failure. With the "C" ring action the gas at least has to turn a corner on it's way!
The 1999 action has a coned breech. Some will quickly say it has a "C" ring but functionally it is a coned breech. The only difference between the MRC and the M70 is that the M70 has the cone cut into the barrel while the MRC has the cone built into the receiver. In practice the result is the same. The bolt approaches the coned rear of the integral ring but does not fit through it as it does on a mauser. The nose of the bolt is more M70-like than Mauser-like.
The Japanese Arisaka, and the Kimber have breeching systems which, while they have no ring as a part of the receiver, function much the same as the Mauser "C" ring actions. The nose of the bolt is enclosed except for the ectractor cut.
The Reminton 700 also uses a ring which is machined into the barrel and into which the bolt nose fits (generous clearances again apply). If the lugs on a 700 were a little further back and the bolt nose a bit longer, it would be much like a "C" ring action without the extractor notch. I personally think the 700 has a great breeching system other criticisms notwithstanding. I think it would be even beter with the aforementioned longer nose.
Back to the 1999.
The only real shortcoming I see in these (and not restricted to only them) is the possible misalignment of the receiver ring to the bridge due to warpage in heat treat. Related to this is the large amount of clearance between the bolt and receiver at the front end so the the front of the bolt is unsupported laterally. Many other actions are the same way. Another by product of this is a tendency for the bolt to feel a little stiff when it is opened while cocked. This is because the bolt is aligned only by the receiver bridge and, since this is a relatively short contact area, the pressure of the sear lifting up on the cocking piece causes the bolt to bind a bit. Some individual actions will show this more than others probably due to variations in clearance. If there is a shell in the chamber, the front of the bolt is stabilized enough to mostly eliminate this quirk.
Generally speaking, I think the Winchester M70 has a better receiver while the MRC has a better bolt. The M70 receivers are (usually) a bit straighter and better finished. Cast or not, the MRC's bolt is at least made in one piece. I prefer to have the bolt stop above the stock line, like the MRC, but would have liked to have seen the bolt stop made a little differently. The little screw which holds the bolt stop seems just a bit wimpy to me. The 1903 Springfield, now there's a bolt stop! I have not heard of anyone yanking the bolt right out of their MRC though so my criticism may be unwarranted.
Anyway, there are some of my thoughts, for what they may be worth. I will now, once again, fade away. Regards, Bill.

Thanks Bill! Very informative!

Bill's post certainly answered a lot of questions that I have had. Very informative.

quote:

Originally posted by JeffMc:
I understand but will pay the price to shoot a more historical cartridge - Really wasn't a wrestling match for me as I have always wanted a 404 "jus cuz" anyway BULLETS-quality bullets are available although not in great variety, BRASS/BARREL-the brass should last a while as it is a low pressure cartridge same for barrel, DATA-only one or two loads needed anyway, AMMO-will roll my own, DIES- the reloading dies now that is a problem.
thanks for your post and your info/opinion is right on the money as I have tried to talk myself out of the 404 for exactly those reasons but always fall back on "jus cuz".

Now, that's the right attitude! I have a LH MRC short action being built into a 6.5/284 right now and the next one I will order is a LH long action to build a 404 Jeff on.

How much are you going to shoot the the big 40+ calibers? I shoot my 375 H&H about 20-40 rounds a week now and the 404 will probably get 10-20 rounds or so of reloads also.

How many different bullets or loads to you need?
I'll find a practice load with non-premium bullet that I can whack the occasional piggie with and develop premium soft and solid loads with so all I need is three bullets.

"Jus cuz" is the greatest reason ever!

Fjold;

"jus cuz" is actually why I own most of my guns since I don't use them to feed the family anyway. I ordered the action and am having it barreled at 22" and plan to use it for coyotes on occasion and any other excuse I can come up with to take it out. I will dress it up like a safari rifle (sights, etc.) and hopefully use it at least once in Africa but mostly will use it "jus cuz". Love your signiture by the way and i really mean I think I am in love!

Bill Leeper;

what a great write up - thank you for taking the time to describe the action differences.