Rod,

I would like one of these .805 bolt diamyter actions and would appreciate it if you could keep me posted as to who may be the Australian agent for these.

Regards PC.

Rod, have you firmed up a Canadian distributor or can you sell direct via Canadian FFL dealers?

I am interested in a right hand short action in stainless steel for a 7-08.

Thanks in advance for any information.

Rod, another vote for "normal" spacing... still, the .330" spacing with Weaver bases will allow a touch more flexibility in scope mounting (accomodates shorter scope tubes) with the LA model.

ALSO...

1) The LA weight... 44.5 oz's... does that include bottom metal, follower and follower spring?

2) What modifications would I need to do to a synthetic stock to fit the M1999 LA's and SA's?

3) Does the LA have a magazine "block" to accomodate shorter (30-06 length) cartridges?

4) Does the SA with a "magnum" boltface have the correct follower, etc. to feed a 350 RM or 300 WSM?

Thanks,

Brad

[ 01-25-2003, 07:07: Message edited by: Brad ]

Brad:

1. That weight is complete, with everything except barrel and stock.

2. To incorporate a M70 classic stock on the M1999, one needs to extend the receiver ring cut-out beyond the recoil lug by .125 and to drop a cut .090 under the rear tang. The bottom metal will be the biggest challenge as it is quite different than two-piece M70 three screw designes. STill, it's all removal of stock material, no filling.

3. The SA will be delivered with one of two mag boxes - one for those ordered in 260rem, 308win, 7-08 etc, and a second for actions in the WSM family. Naturally, this means two bolt faces also. .473 and .534. I suspect the .308 box will be narrower and with different lips than the WSM box. The feed rails on the receiver are likely to be different also. WSM will necessitate TWO magnum followers, one for each of the cartridges you mentioned. The larger body of the WSM requires the cartridge channel on the follower shifted to the left. Unless a feeding problem arises, both boxes are likely to be full length (3.150 internal). One will be able to load long bullets in the 260rem and the 7mm08.

All: Visited Dennis Olson today and did not get back in time to edit the list. Will get to it on Monday.

[ 01-26-2003, 22:29: Message edited by: Rod@MRC ]

Rod,

Can either the LA or SA bottom metal be replaced with M70 bottom metal? Not that I have anything against your bottom metal; but for the LA in particular, I was thinking of using a Sunny Hill M70 Short Magnum [300 Win size] Drop Box on a 375 Dakota DGR, thereby allowing at least four cartridges in the magazine. Is the 1999 close enough to the M70 for this to work easily?

Rod, ditto Chico's question about the Canadian distributor. - Dan

Dan & Chico: Sorry I missed the original question. Exporting (even 50 miles north) is a sticky problem we're working on but have yet to solve. We certainly see the interest in Canada and will solve it, but we're probably 4-8 weeks away from a solution.

Infosponge: The LA M1999 has exactly the same distance between rear and front guard screws as the LA M70. Ditto for SA. Neither length M1999 uses the center screw. If you need that center screw, this might be a show-stopper for your idea.

Rod, I recently placed my order for 2 actions and am really looking forward to building these rifles, but have one complaint/question. Is it possible to have my actions delivered with the rear bridge, or both bridges for that matter, not drilled and tapped? I appreciate the 0.330" spacing was a compromise for 1-pc bases, but I've got to wonder how many people will actually use a 1-pc base on your action? Most of us will be using Talleys or other 2-pc bases. Even with Leupold 2-pc bases, the 0.330" spacing forces us to use the rear base that places the rear ring in front of both ring screws, which of course juts over the receiver opening, and reduces ring spacing which compromises the scope tube integrity. It's also ugly as hell. I'll bet I'm not the only person with this problem. In fact, I'm sure the potential customers who don't like the 0.330" spacing far outnumber those who will choose to use a 1-pc base.

Could you please, please deliver the actions without the scope base holes drilled, as it's a small matter for your client, the gunsmith, to drill and tap the receiver for any configuration scope base the client requests. Thanks.

[ 01-28-2003, 04:19: Message edited by: RickF ]

Rod,
I do not understand why everyone is so against the one-piece base, the extra rigidity it will provide is substantial and necessary even to the square bottom actions. All tactitcal and accuracy shooters require a one piece bsae(although a pitcaninny usally).
I currently have 11 or 12 of your bbls in the shop at this time, and cannot find fault with any of them. They are all long an heavy, and the support of a one piece rail enhanches the accuracy and repeatablity of the swap barrel concept I am prototyping.
Ilook forward to trying your actions when the current projects are done.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rod@MRC:
All: your arguments are compelling. I'm also in the camp for favoring two-piece bases over one piece but was not willing to abandon the latter without some input.

Once freed of the one-piece dilemma, we can put the holes at whatever spacing and whereever needed. Pitch some ideas for your favorite bases. Measure 'em up and tell us where that front hole should be. How far back from the front edge of the bridge. I'll assume .860 spacing unless someone tells me different.

---

Scope mount hole spacing: We've certainly heard the message. We'll do the right thing on SA hole spacing, which means putting .860 spacing in the "right place" so that rear bases will mount forward without overhanging the ejection port.

Pablo: We're working with some base providers to do a one-piece base that will catch that front hole on the rear bridge.

RickF: Can't leave it undrilled. There are just too many folks who want to bolt something on and go and do not want to drill the rear bridge. But, as in the top paragraph, we'll look at all common, and not so common, bases to make sure most or all will fit and look GOOD.

Charter list is updated.

Good on you Rod, the mount hole spacing was the last outstanding "design issue" I can think of in a rifle otherwise acclaimed for its design features. The customers will reward your willingness to listen!

- mike

Pablo.....the idea that a one-piece scope mount can add rigidity to an action is not true. Think about it for a moment! You have a better chance of making the action by rubbing it with Viagra.

If there is any bunch of shooters who want stiff actions, it's the benchrest shooters and they ALL use the lightest 2-piece bases they can find. In fact the latest trend is to simply mill slots for custom rings.

Hi to MRC,

I ordered a standard chrome moly short action from you guys. Now I need to plan the cartridge. Choices I like are 7mm mauser, 7mm mauser improved or .284 winchester. An earlier post suggested you could make the .284 case feed ok but the feed rails and magazine box are a different issue. Do you offer this magazine box size to folks who may want the .284 winchester; and would it feed, always? If not, the 7mm ackley improved seems intriguing. If it is not imposing on you, could you please offer your thoughts. Obviously, I want to make the most of the generous short action space with a standard size bolt face with a 7mm bore size. thanks

Widowmaker: On the M70 Classic, a 284win case feeds fine from the 30-06 style box (KFC). All that was needed was a magnum extractor. We'll assume that our 30-06 box in the short action will work just as good. The rails were fine as is in the M70 and should be in ours as well.

Thank you Rod at MRC, for the information the .284 case should feed reliably through the short action with the .3006 style magazine box. If only the extractor has to be different, that means the action could be swapped back to a standard cartridge with any future barrel change by simply changing back to a regular extractor. that's a nice option. thanks again!

OK Rod you have me hooked, so now all you have to do is reel me in.

In the standard size bolt head with the smaller magazine box, it's said that this action will work for 308 family and 300 Savage family cartridges. So am I correct in assuming that the stock follower and rails will work for a 22-250 that I want to build?

Fjold: Follower and rails should be OK. Feeding from a longer .308 box might be an issue as the feed rails have a taper. Don't know the impact until we try it. If it becomes an issue, we'll have our vendor insert the spacer that is already in the standard magnum and 30-06 magazines into the .308 magazine, shortening it from 3.150 to 2.90. Stick in the LA 30-06 ejector and good to go.

Get the fish net ready?

Rod

Ok Rod, Hook up! I'll call Dan in the morning and we'll see if we can't get an action set up for me.

EDIT: Called Dan and ordered it this morning.

WooHoo. B03-0159 My new favorite number!

[ 02-08-2003, 05:43: Message edited by: Fjold ]

Just bought 2!!

The Charter list is updated - 208 of 300.

Short Action rear base mounting is modified. We will retain the rear ".330" hole and do away with the front one. An ".862" spacing of two holes will be added, with the front hole .200 behind the forward edge of the rear bridge. This retains the ability to mount an M70 Express one-piece base and yet will accept all Leupold, Warner, Burris, Weaver, and Talley mounts.

Thanks all, for pushing this one forward.

Rod,

Thanks for responding to your customers.

Any ballpark date on when they'll be available?

Rod, thanks for responding to our requests re the rear bridge spacing. I look forward to supporting your company for a long time to come. Regards, Rick

It�s hard to be here in Sweden and read of this interesting Montana Rifle Co. action. I would love to get my hands on a couple and build a couple of huntingrifles around them.

I have put in a question to the people on MRC to find out if there is any possibilaty for me to get hold of a couple short ss actions. The paiperwork inwolved in shipping a action to Sweden is probably a gigant task The tax and shipping cost would probably be close to the value of the action to.......

Stefan.

[ 02-09-2003, 03:11: Message edited by: Stefan ]