Hi I have a Montana Rifle short action and to me it is clunky and heavy for what it is. Has anyone done any machining to one to trim the fat?

Howard, it's almost painful to say, but I believe Jack Belk machined and polished one as part of a review when they first came out. I recently did a search on the HuntAmerica site to find that review. OF COURSE, I didn't save the link. I don't know if you're allowed back to the hallowed ground, but you might check there if you're just looking for pics and some ideas for putting your MRC on a diet....

BTW, none of the signatures on HA are correct in the old pages, so the search function is virtually worthless. Jack, who was always JBelk IIRC, is now listed as "41magfan" or something like that. I went to the END of the pages and worked forward, page by page, to find the review.

MKane160

I saw the acton Jack worked over. It was a long action and I don't recall him saying anything about working it over to trim excess weight off. Rather he just cleaned it up to see what type of finished product he could come up with as far as polishing and squaring etc.

I admit I was disappointed when I got my short acton. Only about 1/4 inch shorter then the long action and to my mind very bulky and heavy. Not waht I think you would want in a trim light short action rifle.

Howard, is it for sale CHEAP?

No its not but if you want it its yours for free.

Is a left hand.

I had a MRC short mag action made up and even in a Bansner cored stock it was heavy.

I got rid of mine but a left hander does not have the choices that RH's do. Therefore it may be of some interest to someone. I would still be wary as they don't always function well and are very expensive to clean up. My smith estimated $250 just to even it out and the bolt body behind my lugs was ugly as sin and I don't know how to fix that.

If you really want such a gun then make it up on a cored stock but leave out that MRC bottom metal and have a blind magazine. Thats the way to go.

There is a fair amount that can be done to lose some weight. To lose weight, one first has to determine where excess weight might be. In the case of the Montana action, the closest other action to it is the M70 short action and a quick comparison shows some differences some of which can be addressed and some which can't.
The receiver ring is about .150" longer on the 1999. This is partially compensated for by the bridge being shorter and the ejection port being longer than on the M70. There is more metal under the receiver ring than in the M70. This is because the locking lug recess is cast eccentric whereas the M70 is bored round. The lower locking lug seat is no higher than necessary to accomodate the shorter right hand (or left hand in your case) lug. There is extra metal in the ring to form the inner collar. This is of no real consequence since the collar really just replaces the coned breech on the barrel. Lose the collar and add the cone to the barrel and you break even. The tang is thicker and heavier on the 1999 due to that stupid extra bit of metal (almost a rind) left behind the tang screw location. As mentioned, the bottom metal is heavy. The same is true of the M70 bottom metal so there's not a lot of difference there.
Here are some of the things I've done to trim one of these actions and to address some other shortcomings as I saw them.
1. I reduced the thickness of the recoil lug. The recoil lug is massive. Unnecessarily so. I removed about 1/2 the thickness of the lug. I left a rib in the front center for rigidity and because I thought it looked neat.
2. I took a light profile cut (.015") down each side of the bottom portion of the receiver. This was as much to just have a nice smooth surface as anything else but I guess it did remove some weight and brought the dimension to the same as the M70 I had on hand. I used a ball end cutter so it would blend nicely.
3. I shaped the tang to be just the same as a Model 70 by removing that excess material from underneath and narrowing the tang slightly.
4. I thinned the floorplate by about half. This made it about the same thickness and weight as one of my pre-war floorplates.
5. I thinned and recontoured the trigger guard. I also cut some recesses in the bottom of the guard just to get rid of unnecessary material.
In total, I might have managed to lose 3 ounces. There is a little more that can be done but weight loss won't amount to much.
Functionally, there are a couple of things that bugged me about these actions and I've tried to address them.
First off, the locking lug recesses are not machined but are "as cast". Happily, the cast surface is very good so it works out OK but it bugs me anyway so I decided to machine the seats. The opening in the inner collar is small enough to make access to the seats difficult so I bored the collar out to .812" in diameter. This made it easier to get a boring tool in to face the locking lug seats while still leaving sufficient surface against which the barrel can butt up. The seats cleaned up easily with only about .002" being faced off. However, this is where that eccentric recess made it's presence known. When the bottom recess was faced all the way, about .020" remained on the upper seat. I had to just put the lathe in nuetral and rock the chuck back and forth by hand while moving the tool .002" per "rock". Worked out fine. The entire receiver ring was a bit offset in relation to the bridge which became apparent while setting up to machine the seats so I ended up boring the ring and recutting the threads to 1 1/16. Now everything in the ring was concentric (except for the locking lug recess!) and aligned with the bridge.
The only thing which aligns the bolt in the MRC action is the receiver bridge. The bore of the ring is left well oversized (nearly .020). I suspect this is to allow for some distortion in heat treating which is evident on individual actions, like mine! On this particular action, the receiver bridge bore measures .708. The bolt body is .697 so that's eleven thou of slop. This seemed a little much to me. As a result of this, the front of the bolt, when closed, can be moved around about .012 in any direction. The only thing aligning the front of the bolt is the head of the cartridge case. When the action is cocked, the rear of the bolt is lifted by the pressure of the sear while the front of the bolt is deflected downwards. The bolt feels stiff to open when cocked as a result. Also, when cocked, only the bottom lug is contacting thanks to this deflection. One can only imagine the re-alignment that has to take place when the trigger is tripped.
To try and cure all this I decided to change the breeching in order to provide some alignment at the front end. This ties in to the opening of the hole in the inner collar and was part of the reason I did so. Those who are not machinists or gunsmiths might want to just skip over this since it might not make much sense anyway!
First I turned the nose of the bolt so that it was more like a Mauser than a Model 70. The O.D. of the bolt nose ended up at .690. I might mention at this time, the bolt was very straight and true. The bolt face was perfectly perpendicular to the body as were the locking surfaces of the lugs. A great bolt.
Now, I fitted the barrel. The tenon was turned with an extension which went down through the inner collar. This was then conterbored (like a Remington 700) to acept the nose of the bolt. I gave it .002" diametric (is that a real word?) clearance. I now had to make an extractor cut but the head of the bolt was now supported and did not deflect excessively. The rear of the bolt was still a bit sloppy in the bridge but I fitted inserts ( like a retrofitted "Borden Bump" system) to tighten this up and- It works fine! The bolt doesn't wiggle. It isn't stiff to lift the handle when cocked. All in all, it feels quite a bit better. At least to me. It might even shoot better. It will be a couple weeks before the stock is finished and testing will take place then.
The work done on this action, including the exterior filing and polishing and the polishing of the raceways etc., took a good day. Plan on paying your gunsmith a bit if you expect him to do the same.
There have been some changes made at MRC which should address some of the machining and heat treat induced errors evident in this action. I also have to say that much of what I do in cases like this is really nit-picking. What I may consider to be flaws might be unnoticable to most shooters. In truth, the actions obviously work out alright with no changes. I always hesitate to recount such things for fear it will seem like I am being critical. I'm not. There are a lot of guys shooting them and they seem happy with the results so I may just be being foolish! I also must say that this particular action is by far the worst of any of the MRC actions I've handled so might be considered atypical.
In the end, not a lot of weight can be removed without significantly changing the appearance of the action. I think I could probably get rid of 4 1/2 or 5 ounces if I really put my mind to it but the extra 2 ounces would be hard won. The ring could be shortened. A scalloped cut could be made in the left side of the receiver (right side for those who function differently!) This would be similar to what BRNO did on the ZKK actions. The tang could be made to be like a pre-war M70 tang (or, again, a BRNO). The decision to do any of this depends on your mind set. You either think "a couple of ounces isn't worth the effort", or you think, "what the heck, it's only money"! Regards, Bill.

Howard, I'm a left-handed shooter and if you really don't want that action....

Bill,

You're not nick-picking. Being picky is what seperates a craftsman from a plumber!

ToomanyTools, I am sure Howard has plans for that action as his son is left handed and I might add a great kid, nothing like Howard.

Sounds like you might have to find a LH mini-mauser Howard. Good luck, however you decide to go.

Bill thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmyd223:
Sounds like you might have to find a LH mini-mauser Howard. Good luck, however you decide to go.

I should just get uncheap and get him an old Kimber of OR in 223.

Yes you should. Don't forget the case of ammo!!

on the MRC short..

one may have expected that this be a trimmer and ligher version, perhaps shorter shank and lighter frames...

it's not.. it is heavier than one would expect, thicker, fatter, and all around a big action, that's like a long action with .250 missing from it.

but, being fair, there's enough there for it to be cut down and make lighter..

but, as is, the mexican mauser is a far better for a small action

jeffe

I purchased the MRC as its available in left hand.

As it turns out I should have just got the long action I think.

I am pleased with mine, but I am not weight worried in my build. I picked a heavy contour for the caliber in my barrel and the rifle will be a larger gun just to fit my frame. When I am done, and Jim Dubell has his way with it next month, I will post pictures.

quote:

Originally posted by 333_OKH:
When I am done, and Jim Dubell has his way with it next month, I will post pictures.

Great, Jim is who I will be sending mine to as well.

Bill, That was a bit over my head, but thanks for the explaination. Obviously a lot to thought and a great deal of effort has gone into improving that action. I learned much from your post.
SDH

You didn't learn the cost. Ask Bill for an estimate on the above work.

It may be a rare bird, but didn't Winchester make some of their short actions in left hand? I have one in right hand and they seem to be a nice light action comparable to the mex mauser.

Well since Bill Leeper has not answered yet I will go first and estimate that if the lightening work also includes what I think is necessary cosmetic work to make the action look decent along with slicking and tuning it so that it works well then I say $400 for the gunsmith if all goes well.

Now keep in mind that if it takes two days of ten hour a day work then a smith should charge more.

This particular action is kind of a test case. As it happens, of the half dozen I have checked, it was the only one on which the receiver ring was so badly misaligned with the bridge, though all are to a certain extent.
The next iteration will use an insert which will fit into the opened up inner collar and accept the modified bolt nose. This rather than building the counterbore into the barrel. The plan is to install the insert then bore it to be concentric with the bridge. I would be inclined to accept eccentricity of the threads if it doesn't exceed .005" or so.
As far as angular misalignment of the threads is concerned, I don't consider it to be a problem if, when looking through a see-through mandrel inserted in the receiver, I can see a full circle through the barrel. If I can't, that means the barrel is misaligned enough that lining up a scope might be a problem.
Regarding cost, I never post costs. I'm not soliciting work and I figure pricing is up to the gunsmith doing the work and the client paying for it. I think action work that might be done on one of these is likely to cost a bit more than a winchester because it's a little harder to work on. The amount of work necessary is, again, up to the 'smith and the client. I'd like to see what a "real" metal smith like Jim Dubell could do with one if some one , like Howard for instance, told him money was no object!
The truth is, I do some of this stuff just to satisfy my own curiosity. The front of that bolt flopping around with no lateral support just bugs me. It makes the action seem less solid. Another gunsmith had mentioned to me that he got the impression the bolt was trying to crawl out to the right when the bolt was cammed down. He got that impression because it was! The front of the bolt on these can be deflected up, down, and sideways more than any other action I have. With that problem eliminated, the action feels a lot better. Regards, Bill

Bill,

Could you come up with an offhand estimate of just the hours required to do the following on the MRC actions that you have seen.

1. Hours to lighten and square up as you outlined?
2. Hours to slick action and do cosmetic work?

To smooth up the action and make cosmetic improvments (including bottom metal), about 3 hours.
To lighten the receiver and machine internally, about 5 hours. A bit of guess work here because I seldom do any one thing without getting sidetracked! Regards, Bill

Thats quite efficient. I estimated more time and spent 1.5 hours on cosmetics on the one I had and had not got very far.

For a left hander the action has to be of interest.