Howdy to all concerned,

The barrel and action was shipped out of here June 25th.....USPS Tracking # 0300 6000 0003 8937 1028

Follow-up to above:

Track & Confirm

Current Status

You entered 0300 6000 0003 8937 1028

Your item was delivered at 12:23 pm on June 30, 2003 in KALISPELL, MT 59901.

I won�t criticize walex, because when it�s all said and done, I believe we will all owe him a thank you, including MRC.
I read a study where business teams were formed, and the end products were examined to determine which team made the best product. The best results, by far, were the teams that had a �devils advocate� team member.
Before this topic ended up in name-calling, walex listed specific problems he found with the action he received. With any new product, any business wants to work out the bugs before the product ships, when it�s far less expensive to fix the problem, or as soon as possible afterwards before the consequences are magnified. MRC realizes this, which is why they want recommendations or suggestions now. With this in mind, these are the scenarios I see.

1. Walex has found a valid problem. The three wise men will recommend a solution, and the problem will be fixed before my action ships. MRC has a better product, no lawsuits, and I won�t need a surgeon to remove the bolt from the back of my teeth. All of us win.

2. Walex is up in the night. The three wise men will not find a problem. However, they still might find something to improve the action. My action is shipped either perfect as is, or with the recommended improvements. All of us win.

I also want to make an observation about MRC. They have invited the three wise men to examine a suspected bad product, and openly criticize it on this forum. I have never seen another company do this, and to put it bluntly, that takes balls. It tells me that MRC is committed to putting out the best action for the money. MRC has been honest about what, and what not, to expect from this action. They have earned my respect. I�m looking forward to receiving my barreled action.

OldFart (what a pen-name, how on Earth did you come up with that ), that was a thoughtful entry. I don't think for a moment that MRC is beyond making mistakes, who is? Fortunately, they have responded admirably to this entire incident. In particular the idea of relying on independent experts and promising to publish their findings is beyond reproach.

If Walex received a faulty item, and through his complaints manages to improve future products, he has indeed done everybody a service. Sadly, he did not seem to catch onto the posts suggesting a "complaints time-out" until the offending item had been inspected at MRC. That, plus a tendency to use less than objective and rather inflammatory language, lost him the sympathy of most participants - regardless of the merit of his case. His problem I suppose.

- mike

I guess Montana got the Action yesterday...I would love to see a report from their smith today. Then they pack the item and send it off to one of the others.......I must agree, in the end the owners of these actions will be better off.

I`ve been following this with more than a little interest, I`ve a M1999 SA ordered.
I agree any problems found should be reported to MRC, and hope everyone does it if they find one. They seem to be opened to critisism and truely trying to correct any problems and make right any concerns their customers have.
That said, we all know the owners manuals always say to clean out the old packing grease/missed metal shavings, ect and relube a new rifle. We also are looking at a rifle that was most likely ordered because it was offered at a very good price. To EXPECT A "POLISHED AND BLUE PRINTED M70 @$350" and not expect a bit of breaking in to loosen it up, or a tool mark or two below the water line is unreasonable. (Hopfully mine wont have these flaws )
The action should function safely though when shipped! Dropping the striker without pulling the trigger is a no-no!
I do believe Walex should have let MRC correct his problem before reporting here. The action most likely would have been repaired / replaced and he would have reported more on how the company handled his complaint instead of raging on how bad the action was, and any flaws would be addressed by MRC if it was warranted.
I am with the rest of you guys though in being interested in any reports from others that have recieved their actions, or thoughts from people that have seen one.

Hello everyone. Just wanted to let everyone know that we received the rifle in question yesterday but unfortunately because I was in the middle of calibrating our prototyping machine I was unable to look it over until today.
Before we send it out to Tom Burgess, Bill Leeper and Jack Belk we felt that we needed to do an initial assessment of the rifle. Please note that nothing on the rifle has been changed or will be changed before any of these three gentlemen have had a chance to look it over. Here is what we found:
I function tested the rifle several times and while doing normal opening and closing of the bolt the shroud did not turn at all. But when I slammed the bolt back against the bolt stop the shroud turned 1 in every 10-15 times I did this. I believe the momemtum of slamming caused the shroud lock to fail. We also noticed that the fit between the shroud and bolt body seemed excessive. After checking it was determined to be within standard tolerances but was about .014" more than it was designed for. I believe that this could also contribute to the failure of the shroud lock in this particular rifle.
Overall assessment of this rifle was that it was safe without any real concerns about it prematurely firing while the bolt was being cycled.
I just spoke with Tom Burgess and he will be picking the rifle up today for his evaluation. After than I will be contacting Bill Leeper to do the same and then finally I will ship the rifle out to Jack Belk.
Like everyone else I will wait patiently for their findings and recommendations.
And finally I would like to thank CK and walex for discovering this and letting us know about it.
I believe our findings as well as the findings of Mr. Burgess, Mr. Leeper and Mr. Belk will do nothing but make our action even better than it is now.

Thank You,
Dan

Glad to hear the smith at MRC's findings today. The other reports also as soon as possible following each inspection, not a collective report at the end when each has talked with the others, I assume that's how it was going to be done anyway, just thought I'd clarify to be sure.

I'm not interested in how rough the casting looks, it looks like it needs work being smoothed up to begin with, design, function or lack there of is all I'm interested in.

What's wrong with it, little, big, whatever, and what MRC needs to do and is willing to do, and does do, if anything needs to be done, is the other interest to me.

Dan,

What about the loose fitting bolt in the rails?
What about the finish etc on the bolt that was said to be unacceptable?
Please post pics of the bolt, rails, shroud with it rotated etc. for all to see the said problems for themselves.
I for one feel "roughness" in finish may be subjective, and if you could comment on the pix as to weather this is better, average or worse than what we could expect it to "look" like.
I am not liking the extra .014" clearance you spoke of. What exactly led to the extra clearance and what is proposed to be done about it? Assuming your smith at MRC understands the problem in its entirety, what is his suggestion? Is it something that will have to be machined as Walex said he (implied?)? Is it a design issue, spring issue, clearance issue, was it lubed as he said and that an issue? I would really like to hear your smith on the record as he sees it, along with the solution(s)? How much vertical and horizontal slop in the raceway does the bolt exibit (measured), and how far out is the bolt withdrawn when taking the reading, halfway, all the way? How are these deficiencies tested for before they leave MRC?

After checking it was determined to be within standard tolerances but was about .014" more than it was designed for. I believe that this could also contribute to the failure of the shroud lock in this particular rifle.
Overall assessment of this rifle was that it was safe without any real concerns about it prematurely firing while the bolt was being cycled.
I believe that this could also contribute to the failure of the shroud lock in this particular rifle.
Overall assessment of this rifle was that it was safe without any real concerns about it prematurely firing while the bolt was being cycled.

Could you clarify "standard tolerances" vs. ".014" more than it was designed for"?
Does this mean it had .014" more clearance than intended? Was .014" more clearence expected and tested and and found to work or not work out? what was the clearance "limit" it "was" designed for? You say it could also "contribute" to the failure of the shroud lock. Assuming the slamming against the bolt stop was the other contribution to the failure, just "how" did each of these conditions "allow" the failure? Details from your smith would be appreciated, things still seem awfull vague to me on just what is going wrong there.

The prematuraly firing problem: You are saying it never fired as the bolt was opened, nor could it have and it was entirely safe to cycle loaded ammo. The casting had no flaws in the ramp or anything else? All looked and would mechanically function as designed the way it was formed? Was Walex mistaken when he said it would fire when opened up? Is it impossible? Why is it impossible if so?

I believe our findings as well as the findings of Mr. Burgess, Mr. Leeper and Mr. Belk will do nothing but make our action even better than it is now.

Is there anything you see "now" that you "know" must be done to correct any of these problems he stated having, and if so, what exactly have you guys been thinking needs to be done?

No doubt, Bill, Tom and Jack will have nothing but "improvements" to add if they even need it, but what are your thoughts on it, and does it need anything to make it better... or is it "fine" as you all see it?

Sorry for the hundred questions, but I was expecting a very detailed review of this rifle from you all first, and yes, consecutive ones to follow.... I still don't feel any better about this.... yet.
I know you are no smith Dan, and I'm sure the "relay" deal isn't nothing but a pain in the ass, just so you know, I think I speak for most, we all APPRECIATE YOUR ABILITY AND WILLINGNESS TO SHARE ALL THIS WITH US!!!!

Keep up the good work!!!!

[ 07-02-2003, 00:59: Message edited by: Brent Moffitt ]

Wow Brent,

But well spoken. My question is simple in nature. Will the first short action "Charter Issue Actions" be corrected? Or will the versions that follow have the corrections? That .014 slop, for lack of a better word is a concern of mine. What will be done........DAN?

The idea is to have 3 independent reviews of the subject rifle and have them post their findings separately. I believe they will do so.

I'm not sure where the loose fitting came from as when I checked it myself it seemed very good. Not too tight yet not sloppy at all. The dovetail raceway worked as it should have.

I did not feel the finish was "unacceptable" it was as described many many times here. The interior finish is "as cast" and as Jack Belk has stated before it was smooth but got a lot smoother with some stoning. I didn't feel any out of the ordinary roughness in working the bolt.

I'd like to post some pictures but could anyone tell me how to do this without having the pictures posted in my web site first? I have to admit I'm not an internet wizard so doing so without having a URL is not known to me.

After having seen hundreds of these actions I did not feel that the finish was any better or worse than any others I have seen. Yes it could be better, but with the proper tools most gunsmiths can "slick" up this action very nicely. The exterior finish was fine, anything seen above the stock line was polished.

I guess I should have measured the "gap" in a different spot. The .014" larger gap was on the left side of the action between the shroud and the rear receiver ring. The major area to measure is between where the bolt and the shroud come together. I measure quite a few actions and found that this shroud was from a batch from a previous supplier. It is not indicative of the standard. When I gave that measurement it was based on what I found from other actions that I had on hand. I measure about 10 actions that were completely assembled and the average "gap" between the shroud and receiver ring was about .055-.060". This to me seemed more of the distance we wanted. I checked a new receiver and shroud that had not been fitted yet and found this gap to be even tighter.

Right now I would say that the entire bolt assembly on the subject rifle will be scrapped and a new bolt and shroud will be fitted, making this one heck of a rifle for whomever is interested.

It may have been an early design issue, but one that has been corrected. As I have said we have people working on these actions every day, checking tolerances from Ruger, the machine shop, heat treating company, the company that machines many of the parts for us, etc etc etc If we find something and change it, it is only to make it even better. Everyone understand I believe that as time goes on the actions will always improve. This does not mean that the actions out there now are defective, it just means that like humans, we improve with age.

I will have to check the measurements of the bolt travel from side to side and top to bottom, but as I am responding from my home I do not have access to those measurements.

There were a couple of things that I believe contributed to the failure of the shroud lock in this particular rifle. The distance between that I described above and also a surface on the rear of the bolt was not perfect. What I mean by this is that it did have some rounding over that it shouldn't have had. I have addressed this with the staff and looked at over 100 different bolts and this seemed to be an isolated incident. We are though considering adding a cocking piece notch to the bolt body as a secondary system. Very similar to the Remington 700 has. If you are familiar with the 700 you know they do not incorporate a shroud lock on their rifle, the notch is the only thing holding the shroud in place. It should be incorporated in all new production actions. I will check with our head gunsmith who overseas the assembly about incorporating it into current stock actions.

As I said before although the shroud turned while pulling the bolt back and pushed the firing pin forward I cannot see how in any way it could fire a loaded round. It may mark the primer but I cannot see it doing it with enough force to actually fire the rifle. My thoughts on this for one is that while the bolt is being brought back the only thing holding the cartridge is the extractor. As you pull the rifle back far enough quickly enough the ejector becomes involved and starts pushing the cartridge to the right out of the ejection port. I believe (personally) that even if the ejector is not yet engaged that the shear force of the pin hitting the cartridge itself will have the tendancy to push the cartridge away from the bolt face. Now this is only my personal opinion and I am sure that Tom, Jack and Bill will tell us if we are wrong. Regardless, the shroud lock problem has been identified in this rifle and we are checking vigorously all other rifles or actions for any defects of this sort. I can tell you now that we shipped about 10 actions today and checked each and every one of them under a microscope and could not, even with the most aggresive force cause the shrouds to move whatsoever. It is not part of our standard QA check on the actions.

We checked the rifle over and over again and found that it fed fine, it could be better with some interior polishing as was mentioned above.

I didn't write a "Detailed" review of the rifle as I wanted that to happen with Jack, Tom and Bill. I did write numerous notes on this rifle and was going to compare our findings with theirs. I apologize for being straight to the point on this. I felt that any review made by me would be suspect as it is "our" product and therefore would be questioned as to whether we were "hiding" anything.

Tom Burgess has already looked the rifle over, he spent about 2 hours at our shop going over the rifle and should post his review soon. I appreciate the time he took out of his busy schedule to do so and made sure he knew that the rifle had not been modified even slightly before he saw it.

My "Personal" assessment of this rifle is "yes, it did have some problems, problems that we did not identify before it was shipped. But I believe that the rifle was safe and could and still will become a great rifle for big game. In fact I have so much confidence in this rifle I "may" buy it myself. Since I have worked for the Montana Rifleman and Montana Rifle Company my main objective has and always will be to put out the best product possible. Why? Because I'm usually the guy everyone will call if there is a problem, let alone being burned at the stake."

As I said before "Thank You CK and Walex for bringing these problems to light. Your diligence in checking the rifle over has tightened our inspections of the actions and will make every action leaving our shop the better for it."

[ 07-02-2003, 06:32: Message edited by: Dan@Montana Rifle Co ]

?

Chuck

???????

sorry guys I accidentally hit "return/enter" before I had actually made a reply.

Chuck

MRC does it again: Dan you live up to the policy established in the days of Rod with MRC - responsive to customers, open about internal processes even to the point of exposing areas where things did not work out quite as orginally planned. Your customers will reward you in the end - or at least they damn well should! When was the last time you had this type of response from Remington or USRA??

It is an unfortunate fact of life that no (or very few) products are perfect from the outset of their life. The M1999 action is apparently no exception. So you improve the product along the road. There is no other way.

Good on you Dan!

- mike

Just wanted to pipe in and let everyone know that Mr. Burgess and Mr. Leeper have looked over the rifle in question and I will be sending it out to Mr. Belk on Monday. We look forward to seeing both of their reports on the rifle soon whether it is good or bad. We are trying to be as straight forward and honest as possible and if there is something wrong we will agree with it and take corrective action.

Hey Dan, send the pictures to me: snargfarg@aol.com and I'll host them on this thread for you.
Terry
snargfarg@aol.com

[ 07-04-2003, 02:41: Message edited by: TC1 ]

Guys, Got in for a few hours, Just time for a few lines First I never said the rifle would fire. i don't know. It looked to Chris and I (it happened to him first as he opened the package and cranked the bolt first) I cycled the live ammo with the safe on the mid position, in my shop with it pointed at a pile of salmon netting as I always do. I didn't have a malfunction with a live round (about four rounds) Then Chris noticed that the pin was dropping at a fairly fast rate, and let go sometimes as soon as the bolt handle was raised. In the stock it couldn't twist until it cleared the tang and stock. The price quoted to me was $410.00, not $350.00, and I was charged $495.00 for the action when It was shipped, with the barrel and chambering extra. That's the facts. The finish of the receiver I liked. The bolt I didn't, it actually chattered. Some guys made a few snide smartmouth remarks and questioned my veracity, and I stooped to smartmouthing them back. Sorry i entered into that. The main thing is from my point of view in that all machines are potentially dangerous, and especially guns check them all out thoroghly every time you use them. A friend of mine won a raffle rifle, and just put a round in a blew the barrel off first shot. Maybe a patch left there? some obstruction? Who knows- He didn't look. WALEX

Walex,

I think your intentions were good. Things got a little carried away...Look at it this way, Montana is having "experts" check it over and promised the situation to be corrected, for you and the actions that are going to be shipped.

Good job!

I agree, your intentions were honorable, things sometimes tend to get a little heated sometimes. No hard feelings. In fact I want to thank both of you for pointing out a flaw that we were not aware of. Like I've said before it can only make our actions better in the end. We did find some flaws that went unnoticed before it shipped out of here. We have had several meetings with our staff and I can ensure everyone that we are checking "EVERYTHING" now, right down to the last little screw in the action. I will email you personally about the misquote as that is a clerical error and should be handled between us. Thanks again and good fishing

[ 07-04-2003, 07:41: Message edited by: Dan@Montana Rifle Co ]

Walex,
Glad to see you drop in. I hope there are no hard feelings. If we send you a case of Bananas to take on you fishing trip, would that make you feel better .
Good Luck.

According to the long established story there were 3 Magi. Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar. The lead camel driver was alleged to be Caspar or Gaspar as is your want. Bill Leeper because he will be second to the scene can be Melchior and following up,Jack Belk - Balthazar.
I will not post the results of my findings on this thread, but instead will cover some of the design differences between the MRC action, or system, and the long established M-70. I feel that these differences are important because they tend to be overlooked in worries about fitting the action to existing aftermarket stocks, or take off barrels, scope mount hole spacings and the like and other things that are of seemingly immediate concern to the consumer yet really do not spell out the notable and desirable differences between the 2 designs. Many of you have probably never handled let alone seen the Patriarch of the family, the Model 54 Winchester action. M.R.C. action could be said to be generationally as far removed from the current M70 "Classic" as the "Classic" is to the M 54 rather than the Classic to the Pre-War 1937 M-70. You can go back to an even earlier design. The U.S. Model 1903 Springfield action, Father Abraham?. What visible manifestation of the '03 is present in the current M70?. The accursed (IMNSHO) bolt sleeve lock. That little doo-dad on the left side of the bolt sleeve which locks the sleeve to the bolt to prevent its turning when the safety is turned up to the locked striker position and the bolt is manipulated as in firing. The bolt sleeve uses the same square thread, close enough in diameter that the 70 sleeve could be and was gunsmith fitted to the Springfield M 1903. The Left hand inside of the '03 was machine by a rifling head like cutter on a reciprocating tool which removed about .002" per stroke and cut this to a predetermined distance from the center of the bolt bore, Plus or minus very little. In use the '03 would develop a wear scour where the hardened sleeve lock contacted the left inside wall,in time requiring either a different sleeve lock which,well, stuck out further so that when the bolt was turned down into battery it would be depressed radially enough to clear the retaining notch provided for it at the back face of the bolt body (handle) "boss". In time the receiver would have to be scrapped because there was not enough contact surface to adequately depress the release so that the handle could be turned to execute full battery lock-up. This because of military use in the field considerations. Like bolt swapping during the incessant drill floor cleaning for the constant inspections. There were field gages to detect this sort of thing and the ordnance people to catch them. Winchester used a smaller diameter retaining pin, horizontal rather than vertical in emplacement and this allowed altering the sleeve lock itself to protrude further if necessary. The only rifles which needed this attention outside of those being customized where the customizing itself created the requirement were those used in High-Power rifle match shooting. There the dry firing drill which was a regular practice of consistent winners did the same thing. After the second worn out through firing barrel was to be replaced there would be need for a new receiver, but that would not be the only reason. Its time had come.
The retaining notch at rear of bolt would also have excessive wear and though this could be welded up and recut, Why do it when there were other parts of the receiver and bolt, notwithstanding the trigger mechanism needing replacement. Their time had come,too.
What did MRC do about this feature that many of us learned to hate? They discarded the entire lock system in favor of a plunger that did NOT depend on the receiver sidewall for release, moreover the system they employed would have remote chance of battering the release face in the receiver anymore than the 98 mauser which uses a plunger and depends on the bridge rear wall face to disconnect. When I visited the manufactury in Dec. I approached the action exactly as I might a late version of an enemy battlefield weapon. Familiarity with early (pre-war) production, the tool marks, polishing etc. can give loads of intelligence. Having measured uncounted '98 Mausers, here referring only to those intended for use by German troops, 1936 through April 1945, Yes, the finish went to hell. Yes countless machining operations were discontinued to increase production or to continue production with those machines not bombed to destruction. What stood out from measurement was that the essentials were preserved. Sears from unmessed with pre-war production dial indicated the same distance from pivot pin to the release face within about + or-
.002. Bolt face to back of lugs on the locking faces within .001". The most amazing "discovery" was that the barrels were still lapped!. On the 1945's probably intended for the last ditch Volks forces, The front sight was welded onto the barrel at muzzle, weld not dressed off, but bore was counterbored to just aft of any weld disturbed area of the bore, Receiver had a simple vee notched dovetail milled into the fresh from milled and not polished receiver ring mid-way from SVW to 45 markings, the receivers averaged in hardness better than earlier versions and all in all it showed that they still knew how to make them and concentrated on that which was important. If you scrutinise something that is new and different, there is a trail through the innovations which will still require adherence to certain mechanical principles and control of tolerances if it's to be used for the same purposes as the familiar,the tried and true. There were 20 some odd receivers,bolts and assorted parts for me to examine at the first visit. I asked Rod a lot of questions. Perhaps not enough to make him sweat,but then it was not necessary. The parts themselves told me all I needed to know. If you aren't trying to see what parts might be adapted to something else, you don't need micrometers and gage blox. The quality of fit and machining can tell you what sort of machines were used,how well the cutting tools were made and maintained and a variety of things not needing gaging. The parts can either be swapped in various combinations producing the same consistent result or it would take blacksmithing of some sort to make them fit and they would not likely be interchangeable. No rocket science there. My early summation?. These guys knew what the hell they were doing. I thought it remarkable that they got past the trauma and terror of Casting parts, starting up and getting the results they got in such short time. The local shop machining the parts from bar stock seemed to have a lock on the desired result,too.
The trapezoidal lug on Left side Meant 2 things. Bolt wobble and rotation in fore and aft movement would be reduced, a far better idea than a rear guide lip as formerly used on the actions in the pre 64 production and eliminating the need for that guide lip underside of and next to the right hand lug used post 64 to date by Winch/ USRA. That requires a constant and straight lip from rear of bridge through the ring area to turn down interior area. If you build a fat stovepipe bodied-virtually no taper ctg case- that part of the feed well lip area is going to of necessity need opening up so that the case can proceed on into the chamber. Once you have done that you no longer have the guide and just where you will need it most. I asked Rod in wonder whatever made them follow the leader since it was nigh on to useless considering the trapezoidal left lug taking care of the need for it. As to the trapezoidal lug he said that it was the only viable solution. I didn't pursue the Lip and fin question because his shrug and body language said that it was mostly because the big boys down at the poolroom did it that way.
Eliminating that feature would give them more controlled guide surface for the initial forward bolt movement starting from the bolt at ejection location. Less wobble, more speed to pick up the next round from magazine.
The bolt stop. This is considered a radical departure from the familiar smooth left side wall of the Winchester and others ,too. What did this type bolt stop eliminate? ans. To me the single most undesirable feature of the M-70 from 1936 through the classic. The slot for the 70 bolt stop certainly does allow for twisting in the rear tang. I had a man ask me why I never put the m-70 as #1 for customizing. This as I was fitting up his new take-off barrel on an action he had picked up. The assembly was still in the vise so it was easy to grab a 10" Crescent wrench which we often refer to as a Metric adjustable spanner, emplace it crossways on the tang and twist the tang. Using a finger through the hang up hole at the handle end. " Here try it yourself, You gonna glass and pillar bed this thing"? "No, well why the hell not"? The very soul of diplomacy when given that opportunity I am. He was dreaming of minute of angle because the barrel suggested that potential.
As far as eliminations go that change was a biggie for MRC. Heading toward more eliminations this enabled MRC to put a gas stop flange on the bolt sleeve. They didn't stop there.
They also headed the gas off at the pass by utilising another under the extractor collar as on the classic. A twofer.( gas as in case let-go)
Then there is the Mauser style "C" ring for a ring re-inforce. I cannot say how much this enhances the hoop strength of the receiver but it must add more to it as well as eliminating the need for coning the rear end of the barrel. Hoop strength is a term referring to the ability of a tube to withstand internal pressures above and beyond a so called normal yield point in a static load.
What else? MRC as a logical step for the new sleeve lock changed the safety lever operated bolt lock notch, a semi half round cut on the end of the 70 bolt to a hole. Under certain field conditions an excited user can manage to
defeat the lock causing the plunger to ride over the notch in the extension of the bolt body beyond the bolt handle/extracting cam boss. Frequently this does things to the plunger not desirable 3000 miles from home, notwithstanding havoc to the extension lip of the bolt body. This eliminates that possibility and drilled deep enough provides more than adequate space for the rounded plunger tip of the bolt sleeve lock, which utilises this same hole in the bolt back- face. All in all the bolt sleeve lock system was the single greatest design change, the second and closely following- the bolt stop.
As a visit from the Magi, I brought with me a coarse and medium grit diamond file made for the receiver rear tang cocking piece slot and with a provided new receiver I rubbed the as cast orange peel surface of this un milled place to see just how long it would take to clean this up as we do on the high end custom rifle actions. In about three minutes of light rubbing- all that is required with diamond for cutting teeth I had most of the orange peel off. Enough to convince me that these actions would probably be quicker to clean and polish out than the all milled variety. It can require more than an hour to get rid of the cutting tool marks in the average pre-64 Winchester, sometimes 2 times that long in an F.N pre-war contract Mauser with the rough end mill cuts in the glassy surface at the bottom of the slot. A few rubs here and there where the bolt rides made a large difference there too.

Although at times I built up a full head of steam at some of the remarks made in this thread particularly those made by Walex who reminded me of Captain Ahab, the .416 Rem B & A as Moby Dick ( Well think about the story,dammit!)
I refrained from entering the fray. My report on a seperate posting to Dan was about what I expected problemn would be and so posted Dan on E-Mail before it had returned to them. I was disappointed that Walex either missed or dismissed the changes for the better in the MRC action over what preceeded it by others. You only view a scar on a shooters face caused by stupidity in handloading and where the remnant of a model 70 (pre-war) bolt stop was surgically removed to get over the "ugly" thought of some kind of side mounted bolt stop on the otherwise pristine L.H. side wall exterior.
One other thing. I had a short classic action bolt in about 2 months ago to get the fire pin hole bushed. In a very recent thread on this forum a man wrote about cratering and black bottom pits in the primer indentation from his rifle. The primers in this rifle in a BR caliber were doing the same thing. Owner calculated that .004-005" clearance was too much- hole to pin diameter. I asked for 3 sample cases fired and with different make primers. The pin protruded .055, classic flat nosed rounded other wise Winch shape typical back to when the M54 went to a 1 piece fire pin. It was reported back to me via the gun underground that my contention met with a fair ammount of derision in some quarters.i.e. .005 would not be enough to cause the finning, there was some other cause. There indeed was. .010 end play in the square threaded sleeve and bolt body. I measured the pressure required to compress the fire pin spring from the fired position- 20 lbs. 10 tpi thread means a width of square thread .050" wide. This one was .049+, just enough to clear so it could turn without binding. Slack must then be in bolt body, but the fin of the non blackened primer sample looked longer. Must be more play than that. Bolt in vee block clamped in vise, dial indicator at rear face of cocking piece and pressure applied to protruding pin tip soon brought .010 to .014 " movement to rear of the fire pin, as would happen during firing. This bolt had a silver brazed handle. It may have been one of the shrink fit types that failed and was reprocessed. The threads in the bolt are milled into both the bolt body and the sleeved part of the cast bolt handle. This is a thread made to register for fire pin location. If there is a jog between the bolt thread and that of the sleeve the width of the thread as the bolt sleeve sees it will be too narrow and the part must be indexed and the thread recut to bring it to spec. Solution. I simply compressed the first 2 1/2 thread section of sleeve so that when fully turned in the sleeve would engage the holding side of the thread and be off set by the trailing side engaging the back of the bolt thread when that part commenced to engage the bolt thread. This changed the protrusion so it became necessary to move the registration point of the bolt sleeve meet to cocking piece- not unexpected. ( cutting the face deeper in sleeve by the desired ammount).
Why bring this up? Stiffer spring is usually dumb. Check for end play. With the vee thread used by MRC there would be so much wobble it would be hard to miss. The flat typical to Winchester? According to the old tech notes once used by the factory "missionairies" for fielding questions it was the likelyhood of puncturing primers when some other Ammo makers ctgs. were used. In the early days and with varieties of Wartime ammo made in '06 this was a strong possibility.

The MRC action design? Not to worry. They know what they are doing. Once burned Twice learned. More on another post.

Henry,
Yes he has. You can find it within Bill Leeper's thread "MRC action evaluation. (sort of long)".
Jerry/AK