I think the design/shape of the bolt handle is important too, for aesthetics and functioning. IMO, the nicest bolt handles are pre-64 Winchesters. Tear drop shaped Oberndorfs look great too but present problems for scoped rifles. Maybe a compromise between the two? I agree with another post that the bolt handle should be smooth, and solid, not hollowed out. And an integral bolt guide rib makes feed and function smooth and flawless.

D'arcy Echols was one of my first picks for this project, due the fact that he has a lot of experience with the Winchesters as far as the bolt shrouds and feeding problems. We've worked with D'arcy for quite a long time and have had long conversations regarding the particulars on the Winchester receivers.

When it comes to using the Remington-style safeties, that's something that we will not be doing for a couple of reasons. For one, the Remington safety only blocks the trigger. The Winchester safety not only blocks the firing pin, but it also cams the sear back, dissengaging it from the trigger. The other benefit of using the Winchester design, or should I say, Mauser design, is that the bolt can be completely dissasembled in the field without the use of any tools. While this feature is without a doubt, handy, it is not as important as our customers being safe. This our primary concern, and it is why we feel that the Winchester-style safety is the only choice for our actions.
We haven't made any serious decisions on the bolt handle as yet, but it leaning toward the smooth finish and design of the pre-64. It's my favorite as well as my fathers. We will have a guide rib milled into the bolt that will be similiar to the pre-64 so as to aid in the smoothness of operation.

Johan,
I listed the price at the beginning of the thread which would be starting at$825.00 for the first action, which will be the short, 300wsm length.

We are able to take orders for these actions at anytime. It's just a matter of getting your name on the list. We won't be billing anyone until the actions are ready to ship.

May I suggest a bolt handle shape similar to the 1950's Jeffery Mausers-similar to the straight downturn of the Oberndorf, but with a small, radiused relief milled where it meets the square lug toward the base of the bolt. This makes for a very elegant shape, and will clear a scope. The swept-back handle just looks like another Model 70-good, but common. Maybe you could offer a choice of the two . I will be glad to post or email photos if you like.

I would definitely be interested in the extra long size when it gets to production. Please give us progress reports!!!!

Thanks,
Jim

Jim,
We plan to offer a couple different variations to the bolt handle to try to please the majority of the shooters out there. One option that we will offer will also be a more flat design with panels for checkering and engraving. While we want these handles to have a high degree of cosmetic appeal, functionality must be our highest priority. The prettiest bolt handle that doesn't function with your scope tends to loose it's luster.

I just want to tell everyone how pleased we are at the amount of response and input that we have received from this thread. It will help us immensly in getting the prototypes out.

Jack Belk would be a excellent person to give input on this. It's a damn shame that he's missing out on this one. But his health and getting that eye surgery would be the most important thing.

Sounds like a great project. How long before you make an action for the .223 and .308 based cartridges, as I am looking for an action on which to build a couple of new match rifles for NRA across-the-coarse type competition. Will there be room to mill a clip slot into the rear bridge? Alternately, have you considered offering a competition/tactical action that feeds from a detachable magazine?

alvinmack5, I agree, Jack with his experience and knowledge could be counted on to give an honest and thorough evaluation of this product. D'Arcy Echols likewise.

Jack is only gone this week. He should be back home either on the weekend or next monday.

Chic

I am definitely interested!

I vote for the integral Weaver-style bases, with the cross-slot set to be compatible with the Leuopld QRW mounts. These are the best deal out there for the money, and they stand up to my .416 just fine. I think the slots are standard, but I'd check it out if I were in your shoes.

(Chic - using the Weaver-style base design does not mean you have to buy cheap Weaver rings. Most of the reputable ring makers make good steel rings for these bases. They are very, very good. Don't let the name and memory of cheap Walmart Weaver rings color your thinking here. The Weaver-style base is THE right answer, IMNSHO!)

Matt, are you keeping the same or bigger area on the recoil lug when you remove the recess behind it?

All the options on the action and trigger sound too good to be true!

Don

Don G,
We are making the recoil lug not only wider, but also longer to compensate for the amount of material that is being added under the action. It will also be drafted on all sides to assist in easy removal from a bedded stock. This design that we have come up with we feel will be the easiest action to bed to date, other than your typical benchrest action like the Stolle or Viper-type actions.

Does Mr. Echols just work on Mausers (for feeding perfection) or does he do, for example, P-14 Enfields as well?

Russ

I would suggest that you send an action to PacNor in Brookings. They turn out an exelent product have great service and they are close to you. A lot of people on AR have used their products and services and Im sure will tell you that they are first rate.

Hello Matt,
If I understand correctly you intend to make the bottom surface of the receiver the same level as the mag well on a M70? And the width will be near 1 3/8 except for a bit of draft? What will the configuration of the tang be like? Will You be offering a solid bottomed single shot? The machining will be done prior to heat treatment? How do you minmize distortion during the heat treating process? If you are using 4140 for the receiver are you intending to use the same material for the bolt? If so, what degree of difference in hardness do you intend? Just trying to get a better mental picture. All in all it sounds neat and we can't have too many actions available. Regards, Bill.

Great to hear about your upcoming project. What truly generates excitement from me is hearing that you plan to have high quality, left handed actions, Great! I've been lead down the road of promises before. I only hope that this one becomes a reality. I have a couple of Dakota actions, but are rather pricey. Sounds like I'll get more bang for my buck, with what you propose.

Now, after reading all of the posts, where may I contact you to place my order? Lefty of course, but I prefer the long magnum or standard action, please.

After my previous post, I have additional questions. Will the action have the identical action screw spacing as the M70? I ask this, because I sometimes prefer to use custom bottom metal, such as Blackburn, quite appealing. What bottom metal configuration will you be using?

I have not seen any mention to the type of bolt release that you plan to use. Will it be the M70 , Mauser , Dakota M76, certainly not the Remington M700. I've seen the Montana M99 action and they are utilizing something a bit different. It utilizes a recessed type of a button in the action.

Just a few more words for thought...

Bear Hunter,
We will be utilizing a little different hole spacing than the Winchester because we are placing the front guard screw hole in the middle of the recoil lug like the Mauser. We will be offering a One-Piece Bottom Metal assembly that will utilize the M70 release system, like we currently manufacture. We will also offer as an option, the Orbendorf-style trigger guard assembly as I've posted earlier.

Our bolt release will work in function like the Mauser. It will have a standing ejector built into it, and instead of a leaf spring it will use a hidden stainless coil spring for smooth easy operation. We will also have a larger angled section for your thumb to get a hold of, rather than the slim ridge that is on a standard Mauser. This area will likely be checkered as well. The ejector will be a precision laser cut, not stamped from stainless. Again, one other part among many that will not be prone to corrosion.

Yes,I'm truly impressed with all the features that you mentioned and to the thought process that has been put into your project. Now, can you really produce it for the price you stated? I'm hoping so...

I'm also very familiar with the bottom metal you produce for the M70. I currently have one in stainless and it's a very nice piece, a great improvement over Winchesters' jack-in-the-box.

You have email....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by triggerguard1:

We will be utilizing a little different hole spacing than the Winchester because we are placing the front guard screw hole in the middle of the recoil lug like the Mauser.

This is just my opinion, but I would seriously consider using the hole spacing and basic action foot print of one of the existing actions such as the Winchester or Mauser. My reasoning would be to allow stock makers to use existing patterns with only slight modifications, and the use of already exsisting patterns of fiberglass stocks on the market, again with only slight modifications.

Todd,
We absolutely agree with your idea about interchangability between stocks. By placing the front guard screw hole forward of the existing hole, it will allow us to use the M70 stock because the existing guard screw will be covered up by the bottom metal. This is a very easy modification to make for any stock maker, or even amateur hobbyist. The other thing that we intend on doing, is supplying our customer's stockmakers with CNC inletted templates to work from, so as to eliminate any confusion that may arise. While we want to try to stay as close as we can to some of the existing designs out there, we don't want to make the same mistakes that the major manufacturers have made all over again. There are great qualities that can be said about almost every action out there, but it's just a matter of getting them to be put all together into one.

My father and I own just about every make and model of bolt-action rifle that has ever come down the line at one time or another. We've looked at the good and bad points from all of them. What works and what doesn't, and why. Our goal is combine all of these features that have been proven over and over again along with ones that we have developed on our own into the finest action that our customers have ever had there hands on. We have a number of different considerations that we must adhere to when designing and manufacturing this action. Most of them will revolve around safety and dependabilty. It is also our goal to change the perception of controlled round feed actions as being less accurate than push feeds. Those of you that have built accurate custom rifles on M70's and Mausers no that one will shoot just as good as the other, but there is awfull misconception about this in the industry. Most people look at a Model 70 as a hunting rifle, not a varmint or sniper rifle. In my opinion, if you're rifle won't shoot under 1MOA with run-of-the-mill factory ammo, then it's not good enough to hunt with. Too often people settle for less than satisfactory results because that's what they been told is the standard for accuracy. With the equipment and knowledge that is available today, there is no excuse for having an inaccurate rifle. Sure, you don't have to have a deer rifle that will win benchrest competitions, but if you can, why not? Besides, it's always fun to show up the Remington PSS boys down at the local shooting range.

Triggerguard 1---

I’ve just returned and have read the thread with much interest.

The *idea* is a great one and it sounds like you’ve already put a lot of thought into it.

I see several problems, though.

The flat bottom receiver is a good idea, but hard to have an offset ejector with it. That must mean you’re going to use the M-98 style ejector along with the M-98 bolt stop box you spoke of. If that’s true it means you’ll have to split the left lug. I’m not sure how you’ll solve the gas leakage problem with a M-70 breech and a M-98 split lug. That’s going to be a problem. I’d like to see the design solution on that.

Take a look at the CZ-550. That’s an incestuous M-70/M-98 design that uses the M-98 inner ring and the offset ejector of the M-70. That’s the best of both worlds. I haven’t seen one stretched to the limit yet, but I think it’ll perform just like the common dual grandaddy of a M-98 it most resembles.

If you cut a draft on the engaging surface of the recoil lug the stock will self destruct pretty fast. That surface has to me square otherwise the action is trying to climb out of the inletting with every shot. It gets messy when the front action screw pulls in two.

There are CNC programs, jigs, fixtures and material for M-70 type right/left/chrome moly/SS, short and long actions for sale for a small fraction of the original cost, if you’re interested. Contact Pete Noreen in Belgrade, Montana.

Just as a point of interest--- The Remington M700 safety does not block the trigger. It blocks the sear and cocking piece/firing pin by camming the sear upward. The Model 70 safety blocks the cocking piece. It has no effect on the sear except to relieve the cocking piece pre-load on it. If you just *have* to have a safety near the tang please make it like the P-17/M-30S and not the M700 series.

If it were me………I’d leave the M-70s to Dakota and try to make a “Granite Mountain” M-98 in right/left/short/long options.

Paul Mauser left absolutely NOTHING to do on the actions made between 1905 and 1935. From that point on every action made has been at least a little bit less…..most are much less.

A Model 98 made to Dakota tolerances is the very best action money and hard work will ever buy.

The design is flawless and can be altered to several million unique variations with the least amount of programming. (I get some leakage of bodily fluids when I think about a K-length M-98, square bridged rear, SOLID bottom action with integral loading tray like the Orbendorf 8.15x46 action, with a solid left rail and small front ring. <slobber, drool, lust>……

You’ll never have any doubts about the proven safety record of the design.
The extra work it takes to make a Mauser should be worth more than that in reduced insurance cost. (You may want to get quotes on that insurance before locking in a MSRP.)

With some judicious altering of geometry and wall/rail thickness the M-98 can be stiffened enough to compete with the M700 for accuracy even though the push-feeds are faster in lock-time and more solid in firing pin fall than the longer CRF actions with locking shrouds and quick detachable, bladed firing pins.

I admire your optimism in regards to price. I’ve looked at it for many years with plans to build actions. My estimate for time, tools, fixtures, machines, insurance, licenses, and marketing has always been considerably higher.

I hope you succeed. I’m always a buyer of good actions at a third the price.

"I hope you succeed. I�m always a buyer of good actions at a third the price."

Jack,

Shhhhhh.

JBelk,
I'll try to put to rest your concerns with some responses to them.

First,
With the split lug design of the Mauser, when the bolt is in locked position, the slot is facing directly upwards and blocked by the locking abutments and ultimately the receiver ring. We will have a hole placed in the similiar position that Winchester did on the right side of the receiver of the Model 70 to vent gas at that point. Also, the bolt will have gas cuts placed into it that will direct the gas toward the left raceway. On the left side of the receiever for a right-hand action, there will be a cutout that will resemble the Mauser 98 that was intended to assist in using the stripper clips, but also helped to vent gas out the side of the receiver in case of a high pressure discharge. In the event that this happened, the gases would come most-likely down the firing pin hole, out the bolt cutouts, down the left raceway to the cutout in the receiver. If they made it past that point they would stop at the flange that is on the left hand side of the bolt shroud. This design will prove to be just as effective as the Mauser and much better than the Model 70 in regards to protection to the shooter.

As far as the drafting of the recoil lug, as long as the taper angle can stay under 5deg., the force vector of the recoiling rifle will not raise the receiver in an upward direction. We intend on putting a 3 deg.taper to more effectively insure that this would not take place. It's not much, but it will help in removing an action when in the glass bedding process. And as anyone that has ever built a custom rifle knows, if the bedding isn't done properly, it can cause adverse effects on the finished product.

As far as fixturing and programs, I appreciate the tip, but it is the fixturing and programming that we do that keeps our cost down on manufacturing. We use techniques and components that are unlike any other in the gun industry and are far and few between in the general machining industry as well. This is why we have been able to manufacture bottom metal in the volume, quality, and at the price that we do. While some manufacture their products one or two at at a time, we are machining components up to 300 pieces per load on the machine.

You are correct about the function of the Model 700 trigger, however, the model 70 does infact cam the sear off of the trigger when properly adjusted. If you'll notice when you put the safety on, the sear is moved off of the trigger, allowing the trigger to move freely. A very good article was in Rifle magazine I believe on this. D'Arcy Echols was the one explaining what he did to the "Black Rifles" that he was building. The distance that the sear travels away from the trigger when the safety is put on, determines the precision in which they mate back to one another when the safety is taken off. If this distance is too great, it will alter how much trigger pull and or creap is experienced each time you work the safety. Furthermore, if it doesn't travel far enough, then you can have problems with the rifle firing after the safety is taken off. When I was describing earlier the reason that we would not be using the 700-style trigger, I cut things a little short on the expanation of the Remington trigger to save some time. I supposed looking back, I would have been ahead to give the expanation that you did. I'm not sure if you were under the impression that we would *have* to have a tang safety on this action, because we have no intentions of it at all. It will only have the 3 position style safety on the shroud. There won't be any exceptions.

I admit that in some respects that it would be pretty nice to have a replica Mauser 98 machined to todays capabilities, but the fact of the matter is, very few would like to pay the price for what it would cost. Not to mention, the model 70 has had a little better track record of feeding the large cartridges than the 98 due to the breaching system. Every reputable gunsmith that I've spoken with over the last several years, ourselves included, tend to agree with that.
All that I can say is that if you are pleased with the Dakota for $1280.00-$2000.00, then you should be absolutely beside yourself with ours ranging in price from $825.00-975.00.

I do sincerely appreciate the comments and suggestions, as they are always welcome. That is why I came here. I want to hear all of it, whether it be good or bad.

Matt,
Not to be picky but the M70 does not lift the sear away from the trigger. The safety cams the cocking piece back from the sear and the sear is moved away from the trigger by the sear spring. The distance the sear moves away from the trigger is determined not by the safety but by the fit of the sear in the receiver. In many model 70s the sear actually rides on the bolt body as the bolt is operated and I consider this a flaw which I address when doing a triggerjob on a M70.
I would not put the front guard screw into the recoil lug if there is sufficient room for it on the flat behind the lug.
If the width of the action is to be near 1 1/2 inches that is one massive action. Too massive IMO unless the intent is to make a big magnum action or a heavy target action. To some extent weight is always a consideration. From the description this action will be heavier than the Shilen DGA which was plenty heavy in it's own right. Regards, Bill.

Matt,

I agree very much with Bill Leeper on the position of the front screw.

Over the years it has been demonstrated more than enough to me that for a fully floating barrel the M70 or Rem 700 screw postion is better than the older Sakos, the Howa and the Mark V Wby action.

Consider also that Winchester did have the screw (I think??) in the recoil lug of the M54 and then moved it to centre of the bedding flat in the M70.

By the way, I am assuming that your recoil lug is at the front of he action rather than set back someway like a Mauser.

Mike

Matt, I hope you are not intending to split the left locking lug.I am very curious about the hardness of the receiver and bolt you are going to machine after the steel is hardened.As for the safety:stick with the M70 design imo.The only tangsafety to consider is the Enfield, if on prefers one.Good luck with your action!
Hugh.

"Not to be picky but the M70 does not lift the sear away from the trigger. The safety cams the cocking piece back from the sear and the sear is moved away from the trigger by the sear spring. The distance the sear moves away from the trigger is determined not by the safety but by the fit of the sear in the receiver."

Bill,
The cocking piece is infact the item that is technically being cammed back allowing the sear to travel upwards and away from the trigger engagement area due to it's spring pressure. But, it is also true that the distance that the sear moves is determined by the cocking piece and shroud assembly. This is very easy to test. Just open and close the bolt on your model 70. Place the safety on. Notice the distance between the trigger and sear engagement area. Now, take the bolt out. Now, look at the the distance between the trigger and sear. You will notice that it is much greater now. The reason for this is because the sear has now bottomed out in the receiver due to the fact that the bolt assembly is no longer in position to regulate that distance. If you want a consistent trigger pull, the precison of the hinge holes in the receiver, trigger, and sear must be excellent, as well as the sear and trigger engagement. But, the tolearnces of the shroud where it meets the receiver, and the tolearance of the bore of the shroud that the cocking piece rides in must also be right on. There are a lot of factors that go into this equation, and we've already taken care of 99% of them.

When it comes to the front guard screw hole position, we placed it there for a variety of different reasons. One, the fact that in order to properly hold down an action whether it be on a fixture for machining or in a stock, you're better off holding it from the most extreme ends for stability. Second, my father and I have bedded numerous Mausers, Sako's and Weatherbys without any problem of freefloating the barrels. I've never stopped my bedding at the recoil lug anyway. It's always taken out to the the end or near the end of the chamber area. Third, by placing the screw hole further out away from the mag box, it allows us to manufacture our bottom metal more inexpensively, and will give us much more versatility on mag box design with the same outside footprint.

Our splitting of the recoil lug is not a concern in my opinion on the safety or strength of the action. Mauser used this system with looser tolerances, and lesser quality material, and I've yet to ever hear of a problem with their receivers due to the split lug. The fact that the cartridge that you wish to eject needs to go out the side of the rifle, it would only make sense for the ejection process to take place on the opposite side of ejection direction. I'm not a big fan of the model 70 ejection system. It's much better than the Model 700, but then again, what isn't.

As far as a tang safety, I'm really confused how the subject even came up. WE WILL NOT BE MAKING A TANG SAFETY!!!!
Our safety will be a three-position style similiar to the model 70. This is the only type that we will ever use.

MHO,
The biggest difference between Montana Rifle Company's action and our own is the fact that they are using an investment casting by Ruger and ours is 100% CNC Machined from solid. There price is actually $375.00 as compared to our $825.00. They are using our bottom metal and numerous other components in the manufacturing of these actions, including the bolt shroud. We are assisting them in their project as we continue with our own that we have been working on for the last 3 years. They are making a good quality product that should prove to be quite valuable to the industry and for those looking to get into a good action for a low price. We intend on touching on the other end of the market where the volume is much less. There are going to be some that will not be interested in the casted receiver and bolt idea, and would gladly pay more for it to be machined from solid. That's the market that we are after. We aren't trying to compete with these guys at all. They're excellent people and we have a very good relationship with them that we intend on keeping. Hope this answered your questions.

Matt
I don't believe this has been covered.

What do you expect the mag cap to be for rigby, 505 gibbs, t-rex cases 2,3,4???

Will your big actions be long enough to handle the big cases with long bullets like the barnes??

or the 460 cases/505 cases with .510" military or a-max bullets??

Matt
Thanks for responding, mag cap sounds great.

Box lenght is short for the .510" military bullets, since I don't have a round to measure the longest hunting round I can think of is the 505 gibbs case loaded with a 600 gr X bullet from Arizona Ammo do you expect that to fix and feed from the box.

Matt, still interested in the hardness of the main parts of the action, thanks.
Hugh.

Don G,
I stand corrected. I have an engraver friend who used to engrave Weaver rings. I likened it to engraving Hamm's beer cans. Shudder.

Chic

What do you anticipate the weight of the different actions will be? ~Jeff

Thank you Matt,this solves a problem for me even before it realy exist.Because of my work I have easy acces to 4140 steel but was never sure if it is suitable to make the action of my dreams,maybe it will always be just that,but atleast now I know it is possible.Thanks again.

Hugh.