I don't care for cast receivers. I'd rather have a milled-steel action, or one that starts out as a forged billet, that's then machined. Other than that the general design meets my requirements.

Why this action wasn't set up with the same footprint as the Model 70 is simply beyond me, and I think it's a monumental mistake. Stock options are much more limited, and I have serious doubts that this action will ever enjoy a standardized inletting program from an outfit like McMillan, etc.

AD

Allen

I am sure you have specific objective reasons for why you do not care for cast receivers (such as the Ruger 77 and this MRC receiver). In another post Idared was stating that he had spoken with Mr. Olson, a highly regarded rifle builder, and that Mr. Olson opined that this MRC action was first rate.

Would you care to elaborate on the reasons why you do not like a cast receiver.

Blue

I would make a guess that the bottom of the tang area hasn't been machined yet and will be thinner in the final phase.

As for the recoil lug, It looks about the size of others I've seen. A secondary lug will be manditory anyway.

What about the height of the bridges though? I'm not an aficionado when it comes to big bore actions but it just seems like they should be a little taller to me and go all way to the end of the receiver.

Terry

TC1,

I like what I see. I am sure MRC has refinements planned. I believe Dan said they are in the initial stage of setting
or checking the molds before commiting to a first production run.

What I REALLY want to see is lots more photos of the action....front, top, back, bottom etc.

Regards,
Dave