I have a couple of the MRC 1999 charter offerings that have the two piece bottom metal. I see now that they've gone to one piece. I understand the asthetics of one piece being a higher quality component but from a performance perspective (read: accuracy) is one piece any better than two piece?

The doesn't seem to be enough metal on the sides of the magazine opening in the floorplate to make stiffness an issue, am I wrong?

Is it strictly an asthetic issue?

Rob


Thanks, Rob

You’ll get legitimate arguments on both sides of this topic.

Personally, I think a one piece (which incidentally, very few of them truly are) gives a better overall, sturdy platform to the receiver...if you pillar bed and use high torque on the action screws.

That's what I would have though until I saw how thin the sidewalls of the floorplate adacent to the magazine well are. I'd think that this would be the weakest link, first to deform, not the junction of the floorplate to triggerguard. Thanks for the answer.

Rob,

I should possible qualify my answer by saying that I use DD Ross one piece bottom metal and there is NOTHING weak about any part of those monsters. Yes, they probably weigh almost twice what some of the others do...but if you can bend one with screw pressure you’re a much stronger man than I.

These are truly “one piece“ not two pieces pinned and brazed together...but I don’t believe he makes them for anything except Remington 700 SA’s.

I won't comment as to the effect on accuracy, but from a stockmaking perspective, I very much prefer a one piece unit. I don't even care if it's two pieces brazed or pinned together. I hope I never stock another M70 using the two piece bottom metal.

Almost every Win 70 I purchase I have to play around and shim something to get the bottom to latch well. I would think a 1 piece unit is easier to bed.