I'm heading up to Kalispell next week for a little vacation and baseball and was all set on dropping in at MRC and buying a action and having it barreled. I saw a Winchester Classic, I think thats what they call their new version of CRF, for the same price. It's in good shape with a decent wood stock. The tight wad in me thought I may be able to sell the stock and take off barrel for probably $75. Not a bunch of money but it all adds up. How do the two actions stack up against each other? I want the better product when it's all said and done. Thanks.

You've got to consider that the MRC will require a considerable amount of handwork to get the finish that the Winchester has. This will require stoning the feed rails as well the loading ramp. Depending on what you desire in a final finish on the outside, it may require that you have the action stoned there as well. If you can't do this work yourself, you'll be seeing a pretty healthy price tag for those that do. It's been said earlier on this board that it would be around $300-$500 more.
You might also consider the fact that the MRC action is casted, where is the Winchester is a forging. Some would argue that it doesn't make any difference, but I for one believe it does.

I have never seen a Montana action, but I have two on order. There is a very good chance the MRC M1999 will compare favorably to a fairly new Winchester Classic that the owner wants to get rid of for some reason.

I waited six months to receive my left-handed Winchester, and it was another 15 months of sending it back to Winchester several times and then taking it to a local gunsmith before I had a functioning rifle. I understand that some of these new Winchesters are good rifles, but I would be leery of buying one from that somebody doesn't want it.

If you are leaning toward the Winchester, I suggest you carefully inspect it. Defects on my brand new rifle(s) included visible pits in the receiver (incompletely filled-out casting), damaged screws, screwdriver damage to the wood and metal around the screws, two-tone bluing on the receiver, vise marks on the barrel band, blotchy, dull areas on the wood finish, extra-coarse parallel scratches on the wood, failures to feed, gouged cases that did feed, bent cases that almost fed, dented and gouged bullets that fed, D-shaped ejected case mouths (rifles #1 and #3), complete failure to eject (rifle #2), and a barrel that lay against one side of its channel in the stock. Another thing to look out for is that the scope-mounting holes are all in a row. Rick3Foxes got one on which he could not mount a scope. I don't plan to put a scope on mine, but four little 6-48 taps in the scope-mount holes do line up all in the same line as the open iron sights.

On the plus side, I like the design of the rifle (except the checkered bolt handle, which my M1999's will not have); recoil doesn't hurt, except from the bench; the action gets smoother the more I play with it; and the inside of the barrel is very smooth, not prone to metal fouling. I figure I'll keep it, even though it has cost me the price of a factory "custom-shop" gun.

H. C.

One of the biggest problems I see with the MRC action is the built in coned breach. It is not finished and as cast. Where it is located creates a great difficulty or almost an impossibility in finishing it so that bullets are nor marred and deformed when they feed. I would much rather see them eliminate it and let the smith but the coned breech in the barrel where it belongs. I am hoping the PH models that I have ordered come without them. Or there is some way to remove it.

For my money right now I would take the model 70 but I don't think that you will often find a deal on a model 70 for that price.

[ 08-11-2003, 01:51: Message edited by: Customstox ]

Well, gee, this one can get interesting.

One, decide just what type of rifle you want built and how much money you have to spend.

Two, find a gun builder that is capable of doing the work.

Three, solicit his input.

Four, if you want to use an MRC action, find a gun builder that has at least seen one, and if lucky, you can fine a gent that has put a rifle together with the MRC action.

I have built a lot of rifles on M70 actions, Pre 64's and post 64 Classics. Got two MRC M99's in the shop now.

But, to avoid the expense of inciting a riot, I will leave this post and sit back and watch.

Thanks for all the replies, once again the wealth of knowledge here flows freely. I considered that the question may incite some conflict and that wasn't my intention, so far so good. I was just in the local gun shop and saw the Winchester on the rack for $450 and starting wondering the original post. I did go back and buy the rifle after a closer inspection. It fed a magazine of dummie rounds in a acceptable manner a dozen or so times and it was quite free of tool marks. Not a intensive inspection I know.

My plan for this rifle is to have the local smith at Capitol Sports, Arnold Erhardt, barrel it to 30-06. For a stock I'm considering one of the Acra-bond semi-inlet stocks and finishing up myself. I'll stop in there to check on some things. The rifle is a gift for a nephew, I do one for all of them as they graduate.

I may still buy a MRC for my own project and will stop in there too. I think they have done a great job at trying to fill a niche and listening to their consumers as to what they want. Considering the Winchester was not intended as a slight to their product, just looking for a value based purchase. I think MRC deserves some support in their efforts and I expect any company to go thru a growing stage untill they've arrived at their peek product offering.. Thanks. dempsey

I am personally quite fond of the Winchester M70s and have them on both hunting and target rifles. At the same cost I would have some difficulty making up my mind. The one major advantage of the MRC action, in my view, is the one piece bolt. Cast or not. The M70 is decidedly smoother in finish and function.
I don't think the coned breech collar is of much consequence since the bullet likely won't hitit anyway. I would rather have seen a 98 breeching system myself. On my own MRC actions I will likely bore the opening in the collar out to bolt diameter or slightly more.
I have to agree with Matt in favoring forging as a means of making a receiver. This in spite of the success which Ruger has had with casting. Practically there is probably no real difference though.
So far I consider most actions to require work and the M70 and the MRC are no exception. I won't turn away a M70 for similar money. Regards, Bill.

My first M70 Classic had a cracked tang. My second M70 had the barrel threaded in at 62 minutes downward pitch. My third M70 had the rear bridge polished .015in too low. All three were new actions from the last 3-4 years production. I finally got a working rifle that shoots by matching a bolt from one action and a receiver from another. It's a featherweight chambered in 6.5-284 Norma and is for sale for $500 (including dies).

The machining differences between the M70 and the M1999 are lightyears apart, both in tolerance holding and in specification. One may get lucky with a M70 and get one that was well done. Such was not my experience.

The M1999 finish above the stockline is good enough for me. Take a look at this blued action from our website (www.acrabondlaminates.com). It has been my experience that 4140 actions slick up just fine without stoning. I would stone one if I wanted that crisp edged (machined) look on the exterior. Jack Belk did one that looked darn nice. There's a picture of it in here somewhere also.

OPINION: If I were to start up a new line of rifles, I would NOT opt for a forged action. That metalurgy process has its drawbacks. And I wouldn't accept actions that were not heat-treated up to low/mid 40ish Rc. Mid 30's is not high enough for the dynamic loading characteristics present in modern day cartridges, especially wildcats and many European chamberings.

From Roger Rules book "The Rifleman's Rifle" page 48 on production states that "the receiver was machined from a 7 1/2 billet of 4140 chrome moly bar stock"

Page 53 states "the other parts, ----, breech bolt, were all drop forged in the Forge Shop."

As to which is a better action I don't have enough information yet as to make a decision. I have had M 70's for 50 years and I prefer them in the crf form to any other bolt rifle for hunting. Then came along these internet forums and the reports by Jack Belk on how much better a design the MRC action was in terms of gas handling compared to the pre 64's and also in my mind the MRC seemed superior to the late Classic actions due mainly their two piece brazed bolt body.

I handled a few MRC's when I was in Montana last month and I am still looking forward to getting them. As to internal polishing I can handle that myself. The external surface is something that I am not positive about however as I am not sure if the actions that I saw were polished on their outsides more or less than what I will get. Since mine will be SS and bead blasted I think that will turn out very nice.

As to the cost of a MRC rifle vrs a M 70 Classic there are so many variables that each person must put their value on each. Having been involved in manufacturing where the choice was an investment casting vrs a forging I would not hesitate to take the route of the investment casting if I were to choose the manfacturing process myself. Having toured many forge shops and investment casting foundries including Ruger's Pine Tree Co. I feel informed enough to be comfortable with each method and the final price would be where the casting would win the day. In terms of metalurgy each is just fine if done right.

Overall, guns are not that expensive for me. We have far more $ tied up in just one of the boats than all the guns that I have aquired in a lifetime. Thus I am going forward with the MRC's and I am going to keep at it till they are done right.

What are MRC actions heat-treated to?

Howard, get on ICQ. I need someone to pick on.

The forging process is, to me, just an old way of "machining" the bar stock which started out as a casting anyway! There are some benefits to a forging from grain orientation if indeed the surface to be improved is affected by the forging process. In terms of a bolt action rifle however I see it as just a way of forming the metal, no more and no less.

Having looked at the results of forgings I would not trust them more than investment casting in terms in inclusions and other hidden defects. What goes on in a forge shop is far less confidence building than a slaughter house what will the earth shaking and the poor operators working in conditions so bad that they are insensitied to the real world.

If a manufacturing engineer can point out to me a specific area of an action that was improved by using a forging besides the mythical ones I will read the report. Otherwise I have no problem with whatever method is chosen as long as it's done right.

Also Ruger has proven for decades that the investment casting process produces just as good an action in terms of metalurgy as any other. I have never seen a comment on the Rugers as to their suitability in this regard.

When I ordered my M1999 action on April 24, I asked Dan if it was forged or cast. Dan said it was cast. I opined that maybe it wasn't strong enough; he replied that it was indeed strong enough and that the casting was made by Pine Tree for Ruger. I accepted it that if Ruger used a casting, I could use a casting as well. Additionally, I was told that Winchester was looking to use the M1999 action in future M70s because USRAC's molds were showing their age (tolerances and dimensions were wandering) and it cost so much money to make new ones that it was not financially sound in a down economic climate with decreasing gun sales to invest dozens of thousands of dollars in new molds. Based on that information, I ordered my action and will gladly take delivery of it whenever it should arrive. I would also add that golf clubs are made using the investment cast (lost wax) technology because the casting is an exact duplicate of the original 100% of the time. You gotta love that!

[ 08-12-2003, 16:14: Message edited by: rootbeer ]

All I am is a shooter and hunter, but I'll take a pre-64 Model 70 or Classic Model 70 action as the basis of my custom hunting rifles any day of the week over an "improved" Model 70 clone from any source. I've used Model 70s for over twenty-five years, know the mechanism, trust it above all others, etc....

Besides, that Winchester logo on the receiver means a great deal to me, especially since I'm a fifth-generation Winchester shooter. That great old company name, tradition, history, and mystique is something I want to have along with me no matter where I hunt in the world, and I just can't get past that fact.

I don't care if a stock Model 70 action isn't quite perfect to begin with anyway. If the action is basically sound and without serious, uncorrectable flaws, it can be turned into a truly fine, concentric, precise mechanism in the hands of an expert custom riflemaker. That's all I need for my purposes.

AD

Allen

I am shocked to hear your comments above especially the comments expressing your disdain for improvement and the fact the �tradition� of the name means so much to you.

Are you not the one who so frequently pours out your venom on those who express a liking for tradition that you so rudely termed �scared cows�? You have expressed the pleasure you get in �skewering scared cows� namely tradition for traditions sake and those who you perceive as ignoring advancement in technology. Then you make the above post! Seems to me with your statements about the Winchester Logo, and the idea that certain things can�t be improved upon and even if they can what we have now is good enough anyway is no different from the sentiments of others that you ridicule. You ignore improvement from any source with respect to YOUR action of choice yet in other threads you ridicule those who have expressed a preference for the old and proven things. I think what others have said is right, it has nothing to do with tradition, facts or lack thereof, its all about my way is the only way.

Howard, it sounds like you've got some sort of old ax to grind against me, which comes as no surprise at all. I really think it would be wise and prudent of you get over your empty grudge and find a new target for your frustrations, and I mean this in all sincerity.

But to move on in a more positive direction, and to address your points, I'll just say that I object to "traditional" rifle building concepts and/or materials only when they get in the way of potential performance, durability, stability and weather resistance. The Model 70 action has not proven to be problematic in any of these areas in my experience, quite to the contrary in fact, so I'll continue to use it.

The proceedures I ask for when I have a Model 70 reworked take this action well beyond the realm of old-school traditional in any event, and get everything out of this action that it has to offer, which is more than sufficient for any hunting purpose.

Besides, that little ol' Winchester logo and trademark on the receiver adds material value to the rifle in my opinion, which is a very practical material consideration (long-term) in and of itself.

AD

Stop scaring the cows.

Paul

Howard, you been drinking again? It was "Sacred Cow" not "Scared Cow"

VFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alvinmack, since you guys seem to run in a pack, I figured that you'd wait for one of the other pack members to open the ball before you came out of hiding to land some cheap shots of your own.

AD

Cheap shots? I dont recall directing my posts to you an ignoramous like you. Nope, definatly looking back. Yeah that post was for Howard not you. Sorry to disappoint.

With Love Mike

Sheesh!!! The Mule Deer/Sonoran Thread and now this...

Good thing hunting season is coming into full swing soon. I think that a bunch of us (me included) need to get out and kill something.



Take Care,

-Steve

[ 08-13-2003, 20:01: Message edited by: Steve ]

If you're looking for an obsolecent novelty or for something to remind you of the "good ol' days", I guess that's fine, but personally I'd rather create something that's based on a better-designed action from the outset and make something pretty out of that. My attitude is simple when it comes to custom rifles: Form must follow function, and to hell with nostalgia, and to heck with romance. Those concepts have never bought me anything up on the mountain.......... -Allen (01/09/02 04:19 PM)

I think all Howard was looking for was just a little intellectual honesty............

[ 08-13-2003, 20:51: Message edited by: alvinmack ]

I'm not part of any pack. I just surfed in, saw something that struck me as being potentially humorous and capped on it. Sorry.

Paul

Paul your post was funny don�t be sorry, dang spell checkers can't make up for poor proof reading.

Alvinmack, thanks for finding that old post of Allen�s. His comments there were EXACTLY what I was referring to. I think many here well remember his insulting arrogant comments towards others who expressed similar feelings of nostalgia that he just admitted to having for Winchester. Only problem is those others PERSONAL feeling and opinions didn�t agree with his so instead of granting them the right to their opinions he felt the need to rip into them; the skewering of sacred cows. Funny thing is when they responded in kind he left in a huff swearing to never come back and now here he is posting that he makes decisions based on things that are in direct conflict to much of his earlier postings.

Allen I have no grudge against you empty or otherwise nor do I have an ax to grind with you. Why exactly do you think that? Well maybe a small ax. It does rub me the wrong way to see a person with so much knowledge and experience, at least you claim to have lots of experience, who is so good with words feel he has to jump on others preferences and opinions rather then to simply state yours and your reasons for them and leaving it at that.

Alvinmacks, you're playing word games here, and you know it. It's funny, but you never seem to contribute anything of value to these discussions, yet you call me an ignoramous. It's easy to call names over the internet, isn't it?

Howard, I've never had anything against you whatsoever, and I still don't. I am willing to take the risk of stating my opinion when it comes to rifles, and I'm well aware that not everyone is going to appreciate or agree with what I have to say.

As far as I'm concerned, you and Chic are welcome to come down here and visit me any time you'd like to look at some guns, trophies, hunting photos, etc. You'd be welcomed as guests, and I assure you, there would be no trouble of any kind. Maybe we can put some of this ill-will behind us.

AD

If quoting your past statements is playing word games, then im guilty as charged!

Btw can I come with Chic and Howard to drink some of your beer?

[ 08-14-2003, 20:20: Message edited by: alvinmack ]

Alvinmacks, yes, you'd be more than welcome to come as well.

AD

FWIW, in 2000 I purchased two Winchester Custom Shop Model 70s – left hand stainless models in .30-06 and .375. The .30-06 was pretty marginal for a flippin’ $2200 rifle and was sent back twice. In desperation I finally had Pac-Nor rebarrel it and square the action and now it is a “pretty good” rifle. After my bitching the Winchester Custom Shop put my .375 together pretty well – it fed great and put four in �” right from the start.

I like the stainless rifles but still wanted a pair of “classic hunters” – blue steel and walnut. I was not about to shell out another few thousand bucks to the Winchester shop so about 18 months ago I purchased two left hand blued Model 70’s, a .30-06 LT Sporter and a .375 H&H Safari Express. They were okay, the .30-06 had a really, really free floated barrel, i.e. a big gap between barrel and forend but actually shot pretty well, but the extractor would not hold the cartridge properly (loose extractor, left hand action, right hand follower spells less than CRF reliability). The .375 walked the shots across 4” for four shots and shaved brass pretty badly when chambering. I had contacted Jack Belk about bringing them up to their potential - new barrels, action jobs, new extractors, new bottom metal, whatever it took to make them into 100% reliable, accurate rifles.

Then Jack wrote very glowingly about the 1999 action. Apparently it is held to very tight tolerances, at least compared to your average RemWinRuger (and the left hand actions have left hand mag followers – oh joyous day!). The casting is expertly done and IIRC the hardness differential between the bolt and receiver apparently makes for a really slick action. In short, he was impressed. If he is impressed then I am impressed. Now if someone wants to call me a sycophant or whatever because I trust Jack’s opinion so much, go ahead, it really won’t bother me. I’ve met him and spent an hour talking to him and he knows whereof he speaks. True, the 1999 action needs to be polished. The whole raison d’etre of the action is to sell to custom gunsmiths.

Anyway – to make a long story short, I ordered a pair of left hand M1999 actions and have contracted with Jack to build my pair of “classic hunters”. Both rifles to have the actions completely polished, new spring steel extractors (the 1999 extractor is MIM just like the Model 70), trigger and sear pins replaced to exact fit tolerances, trigger job - “snick-snick” actions is the technical term, L-W barrels, steel Wisner sights, Blackburn bottom metal on the .375, both rifles to be rust blued. The .375 will cost a bit more than the .30-06 because of a drop box mag, but each rifle will still cost just about the same as the street price of a Remington Custom Shop rifle. This for a rifle that combines all of the good stuff of the Model 70 and the Model 98.

Now I know that Mr. Echols can make a truly superb rifle from the Model 70, but as I understand it he performs something like 60 separate operations to get it up to his idea of “snuff”.

Which action to go with? I’ve made my choice even though I have already spent the retail price of two Model 70’s. (Lefties - wait a few months and I will have a couple of left hand LNIB Model 70’s for sale.

From what I can and have seen – if you start with the factory Model 70 you might (about 50/50 chance in my experience) have to spend money to correct mistakes from the factory. Both actions will need some work, but the Montana is made to give the gunmaker an excellent place to start from. On the Winchester you might have to take a half step back in order to start from the proper point.

As always, just my humble opinion. If someone has material facts to share, I welcome your comments. If you just don’t like my opinion, well, that’s okay too.

[ 08-14-2003, 21:33: Message edited by: Jim in Idaho ]

Howard

I think what Allen is saying is that tradition is worth lots of points as long as function is not lost.

Allen has certainly made a few postings that are against H&H bolt actions in the face of those who support them on tradition. He also has a solid argument.

If we take the Model 70....it has about the most perfect bedding configuration of any receiver.... If you desire, you can fit a Jewell trigger and pick from about 2 ounces to 4 pounds.....

Now there is no question that the MRC action can also do the same but it is missing the Winchester "thing". If one was to have a fully customised rifle like Allen does with Echols and have it made on the MRC action then any gains that the MRC might have are lost and at the end you have an expensive rifle on a cast action with a label that is unknown.

If we jump to the H&H bolt action then we have a complete change in action design. We are now Mauser Vs Model 70. The move to Mauser certainly brings about a less desirable receiver design. Some might argue about the Mauser as a military rifle and then an equal or bigger number of people would argue on the side of the 303 SMLE.

So in summary, I do not think Allen has contradicted many of his previous postings by saying that the Winchester Logo is worth having.

His main point in the past has been that "tradition" is not a good reason to spend money on a rifle. I guess he would agree that "tradition" is a bonus and also it should not be given up if function is the same.

Having said all of that I disagree with Allen on certain aspects of rifles. One being accuracy. I did once debate Allen on HA on the basis that for the money an Echols rifle cost I would eat his rifle for lunch....simply because I could pick the best from 20 barrels. By the way, I think even Echols would put his money on me for that contest. and doubly so if the calibre is 375

In my opinion Allen is no different to many of the other posters on the forums who have had a lot to do with guns. Views are put forward and some people take the person to task but are not ready or willing to deal with the responses.

Mike

Now, wait a minute...
I've been accused (and rightly so) of posting stuff in this Forum that really doesn't belong here, i.e. questions about WindowsXP. Let me suggest that yous guys who are pissing at each other in th eabove posts, get yourselves a few bottles of booze, your guns, some ammo and go settle it like they did 200 yeards ago. Chances are you will see the inanity of your arguments before you hurt each other and then spend the rest of the day having a good time at the range. Shoot straight, shoot slowly and shoot good groups.

Allen, Chic drinks Heineken Dark, for me anything from Deschutes Brewery, and for Alvinmack get some Old Milwaukee or any of the north central area horse piss they call beer; he won�t know the difference anyway, he is from Minnesota.

I prefer an obsolecent novelty that reminds me of the "good ol' days".



GV

Allen, dont listen to Howard.

He drinks:

Schmidt's Gay

What the heck, its all good.