Any opinions out there on the new Montana action as compared to others. Such as the Dakota? Others? I realize that if you include the cost there is no comparison. But cost aside what would make a dakota action better or vice versa.

So far I have been very impressed with the Montana, especially their willingness to listen and to use that feedback to improve the product.

All I can say is this:

Winchester Model 70 actions have served me very well over the years (as in over 25 years) on many hunts to many places for all manner of big game. I see no need to use anything else, and I won't.

AD

And I'll stick with my bamboo fly rod?

I don't think so. It may be fun to use once in a while but no one is going to pry my Sage away from me. To each his own.

OHH come on Toomany you can't compare the Montana action to a Sage.As a fly fisherman myself who has a few (SPLCA,RPLXI)the sage is more along the lines of the Nesika actions.

I have been with M 70's now for 45 years. I did not buy a new one for 45 year either as the post 64's turned me off. I just bought used pre 64's. Then I got a new M70 SS Classic last fall. It's a pretty good gun and not expensive at all. The stock was made wrong in it's bedding dimensions (or else all of the screws were made too short in their threads) but I fixed that. A better stock is really needed on the M70 if you want a plastic one but I own that injection molded one and so I am trying it out right now. The rifle shoots very well and is smooth to operate. The new M 70's have a bolt that is soldered together just ahead of the handle. I don't think I am going to put much money into this new 70. I picked up a used Bell & Carlson for it. That's as far as this one is going to evolve. Overall it's a good deal however for $660.

I found the M 70 because I wanted the best to build on and it was a excellent decision in 1957.

Today there may be something better so I ordered a M1999. It's no big deal for me either way and I just want to check them out. That's the neat thing about rifles. They are so interesting and there are so many variables.

Toomany Tools, yeah, if I want to stick with "bamboo flyrods", that's exactly what I'll do, and with or without anyone's blessing.

I'm not much of a fisherman, but at least I've got enough hunting trophies on the wall (make that a lot of walls) to to give my choice of rifles just a little bit of credibility........

AD

The Dakota is a better finished action but it should be! Technically the MRC action may have some advantages. Like the inner collar providing a more rigid barrel/receiver connection. Better gas handling.
In comparison to the pre-64M70, the MRC features better material and heat treatment as well as the previously mentioned rigid barrel connection. The pre-64 handles gas by directing the bulk of it into the shooters face so the MRC has a big edge here.
The MRC stands tall in comparison to the new M70 classic just by virtue of it's one piece bolt. The better bolt stop, improved bolt sleeve,nicer bottom metal and vastly superior fit and finsh are just icing on the cake.
After all of this you still have to consider that it's a bargain and these are nice guys making it! I can't help but be a little enthusiastic about the actions just because it's nice that such a well thought out and affordable action is being made available to the gunsmithing trade. When I get around to putting together a couple of rifles on these later this year I'll have more to say. Regards, Bill.

Allen, one question if I may, without pulling out the rulers and measuring. Have you discussed with Echols HIS opinion of the Montana actions, and if he has any long term plans for them, assuming he is not already overstocked on M70s?

Allen,

I detect from your post that I may have offended you and I offer my sincerest apologies if that is the case; it was certainly not my intent.

I only wanted to illustrate that there are "different strokes for different folks". I used the analogy of a fly rod in an attempt to illustrate that some old things work pretty dammed well but new technologies shouldn't be discounted either.

Again, I offer my public apology if I have offended you; it was wholly unintentional. I respect your opinion and your experience as I hope you do mine.

P.S. elim - right you are, sir!

Bill Leeper said it well.......as always.

Right now, given the choice of a pre-64 M-70 action, a post '64 M-70 action, a Dakota action, or a MRC '99 action. I'd take the Dakota.

........and then sell it and buy as many MRC-99s as the money would allow.

If given the chance to take two M-70s or one MRC '99? I'd take the '99.

I realize that most people on this board haven't seen the pictures of maimed and blinded shooters with scraps of M-70 shroud locks, springs and brass stuck in their eye sockets, but I have.

The Montana Rifle Co. M-1999 has solved that problem with a slick, well designed, tightly made, and practically manufactured action available to anyone with less money than the M-70 cost.

It's a no brainer. The MRC 1999 wins every SINGLE time. As anyone that saw the worlds best gunmakers and their customers stand in line to fondle and inspect the '99 action in Reno so aptly illustrates, it's a good 'un!!

I just placed my order for the short version. They tell me they're selling fast so if you want to take advantage of the very low pre-production price ($350) you might want to hurry. I'm going with a stainless, right hand, standard bolt face. Can't decide yet between a 250-3000 or 308 although the prospect of a 7mmWSM was also intriguing.

I'd ordered 3 SA's to build rifles for kids, taking advantage of the custom serial #'s. Once I read Jack's review, I knew the orders would be piling up, so I ordered a stainless magnum short action for myself, and managed to get s/n 350 to build a 350 rem mag on.

I would order more actions, but I already am trying to figure where to hide when my wife see's the bill when they finally ship I should have a doghouse built for the pup by then, and will likely be occupying it in the future.

I called them today and they estimate the weight of their SA at 2.5 lbs. Jack Belk weighed the LA at 2.95 lbs.

There is some fresh data from Brad on the Reloading section on barrel and stock weights under "20" .308 Win".

Some of this sounds like another "Chicken Little" rifle alarum to me.

Yeah, I know of some Model 70s that have come unglued myself. All were original pre-64s, and all came apart due to gross incompetence on the part of the operator. Here's an example of one: Amoung my wanderings, I hunt Texas a great deal for deer, hogs, and other stuff, and I have for over twelve years running. There is a hardware store in Fredericksburg that has pieces of a disintegrated pre-64 Model 70 in .243 Win. (a standard grade) on display for all the world to see. This rifle became a collection of broken parts because the boob that was handloading for it mistakenly seated some .257" bullets in those .243 cases, then headed to the range. Now if you need an action that's proof against that sort of buffoonery, the old pre-64 Model might not be your huckleberry. But if you're a bit more careful about what you're doing (the originals were tested with 70,000 PSI proof loads for Pete's sake!) you'll have no problems with a Model 70, and the new ones are stronger than the pre-64s by quite a bit.

I've owned over 100 of them over the years, fired tens-of-thousands of rounds through them, and I've hunted with them in temperatures of over 100 degrees F to more than 20 degrees below zero F, and I've put over 200 big game animals in the salt with them with no blow-ups, muck-ups, failures, or anything else. I suspect I'll hunt with them for the next thirty-five years to come before I hang up hunting and leave my rifles to any grandkids that might come along.

AD

I have always liked the bedding configuration of the Model 70 and the Montana duplicates that configuration.

I would imagine the action is better made than the Model 70, which would not be hard these days.

My only reservations would be whether the action is subject to binding up with dirt or dust because of the dovetail locking lug arrangement in the action rail, But I guess Jack Belk and Bill Leeper have seen the actions so could comment on that issue.

My other negative is that (I think?) the rear receive ring is set for M70 375 scope bases and and I think Leupold does not make Dual Dovetails for that spacing. But then again some Model 70s these days need a rear base/ring setup with aboyut 23 feet of windage adjustment and 57 feet of elevation adjustment. I am convinced that both Remington and Winchester are competing in this area It must soon get to the stage where the action and barrel is like a T piece

Mike

I read Mr. Belk's review on another thread. In all the lurking that I do on the gunsmith forum I have come to respect his righting and knowledge. His high regard for the 1999 was enough for me.
I have never had a pre64 M70 but the post ones I have handled in my opinion were junk.

The M 70 Winchester has been the Riflemans Rifle since it came out. They did take a Rip Van Winkle nap for over 20 years while the post 64 junk was sold but now the rifle is pretty good again in my estimation.

The design of the M 70 is it's strong point and that's why Allen can say they are really good when tuned and I say the same.

The M 70 has been the best sporting rifle for most of the last 65 years or so. That's a record to be proud of.

Everything can be improved however.

Allen,

There used to be a place in Fredericksburg, Zeo's Sporting Goods, that may have had the M70 you mentioned. As I recall, the guy actually managed to fire a .250-3000 round in the .243. It has been several years, so I could be mistaken.

Zeo's has been gone for a few years now. Sorely missed.....

John

John, would you happen to be from Hondo, TX as in: "Hondo, TX, This is God's Country, Don't Drive Through It Like Hell?"

Sage....wah

Once you go Winston...you never go back.

mho

Dakota actions have a reputation of being very soft with some people in Australia. However, I think this is because of early actions that were brought out here. Perhaps a simlar situation exists in Switzerland??

Mike

I don't think Echols has had a chance to work with the Montana action yet, so I don't know what he'll think of it if and when he does. I know I like what he does to a Model 70 action, and those efforts have greatly exceeded my expectations, so I don't look much past that. I'm just a hunter who orders custom rifles to hunt with.

John, no offense taken, I always appreciate your comments and your class!

I've heard the "soft" comment as it relates to Dakota actions time and again over the years. I had two early Dakota rifles in .338 Win. Mag. that didn't shoot well at all, and once those rifles went down the road I never revisited the Dakota again. I do know that I dislike the absence of a bolt sleeve lock (as on the Model 70), and I don't think the detent system that Dakota uses for this purpose is as secure.

It sounds like the Montana action is a well-engineered and well-made piece of equipment. I'll look forward to examining it in person at some point in time.

Just because someone such as myself is a Model 70 loyalist doesn't mean that some other, newer-but-similar action isn't just as good or in some ways better.

I do know that that the company name and mystique of "Winchester" has great meaning for me, and that trademark on the action adds great value to the rifle in my opinion. Even in Africa, the Winchester name (the Model 70 is particular) is widely-known and respected, even by those who know few other English words. The Model 70 has an illustrious history on the target ranges and the hunting fields of the world, and it's a history of quality and high performance that's been matched by few other commercial rifles and exceeded by none, and I'm proud to be a small part of that history and to share in that heritage.

AD

[ 02-11-2003, 19:17: Message edited by: allen day ]

Just to clarify the post on hardness of actions---

Remington, Sako, Winchester (post-64) Tikka, Dakota, Savage and most other machined actions are Rc 32 to 35 with bolt 3 to 5 points harder. That "standard" was set with the alloy steel receivers of the 03 Springfield and post '24 Mausers, and remains true today.

The investment cast receivers of the Montana and Rugers are usually left in the Rc40 range.

I discussed this at lenght in Reno with many present and with Rod at MRC and the consensus is that nothing of practicallity is lost by drawing these back to Rc32-35 for engraving and inlaying, just as has been the normal proceedure for Rugers for the last 35 years.

If you're REALLY in tune with your rifle and have a descerning touch on the bolt you can feel the difference between 32 and 40 Rc, but the difference is not as great as is felt between chrome moly and stainless at the same hardness.

One of the experiences at the Reno show was neat to me...... Jerry Fisher had heard of the M'99 on my table and came over to take a look. Jerry always checks an action by repetitive opening and closing using just his (LARGE) fingertips to guide the bolt back and forth in the raceway while talking. It was nearly hypnotic to see him "seeing" by feel every nuance of the bolt travel. After some discussion and me pointing out some of the features and possible problems, he said, "It's as hard as a pre-war, isn't it?".

Dead on the money!

Mike375--

The action I had was as tight and smooth as any pre-war M-70 I've ever handled (after I stoned it). The tolorences are very tight but I see absolutly no problems with dust and mud clearances for sporting use. It's not an action to crawl around in the mud with, but it doesn't have the same problem as the M-700 with limited clearance in the barrel recess, either. The inner ring solved that.

Are them 'roos shooting back now??

Husqvarna made a action with both lockinglugs looking like the right one on the Montana action. The HVA action was called 1900 here in Sweden and was sadly discontinued in the early 70:ties. The kombination of wery hard steel in the bolt and the dovetail shaped lugs made the action smooth a silk to use. I�ll dobth that there is another action that cykles as fast as the 1900..... The new Sako 75 have a similar "feel" to it but i still go for the HVA 1900 when it comes to rapid, well aimed, fire on running target etc.

The action was only made for standard length rounds like 30_06 etc.

I hope it�s possible to get a few Montana actions over here to build some nice hunting rifles around!!

Stefan.

Thanks for the replies, especially to JBELK and Bill. I have had a short M1999 on order.

JBELK, what advantages do you see in getting the action pre-polish? Do they remove too much material?

Dave

Jpndave---

I still haven't seen a Montana that's been polished as they're finished now.

I requested an untouched action because, by ACGG rules, only work done by Guild members can be shown. I used the MRC-1999 as an example of my action polishing skills. The fact that it was a brand-new to the market just added a lot of interest.

I'll be placing my order soon on a M1999 action. I agree with Grandview having a M70 in 270 is very nostalgic and their is nothing wrong with that.

JBELK,

You mentioned that you had commented to Jerry Fisher about several features and possible problems. Have you posted about that yet? If not would you mind sharing your opinions on that and possibly those you heard form the other "great ones".

Thanks,

Dave

Bill Leeper and /or JBelk:

Please offer a comment about the CZ550's gas handling design as compared to the MRC M1999 action.

Thank you.

Yeah, I know of some Model 70s that have come unglued myself. All were original pre-64s, and all came apart due to gross incompetence on the part of the operator.

As a person who has survived a Model 70 that came unglued I take exception to this statement. If Mr Day wishes to make such a statement I will make another. If I have to have a case let go I want to be shooting almost anything but a pre-64 model 70 Winchester. A simple look at the design of this action will tell anyone why without having to spend a lot of time at it. Does this mean I don't like model 70s, of course not. But if something does go wrong it can be a bad experience, and one that will make a person more apprecative of anything that is done to keep gas and brass away from the shooter's face. It looks like the new Montana action has tried to do that and I applaude them for it. I'm sure I will have one of them someday also.

If pulling the trigger on the 46 or 47th round in a lot of 50 new Winchester cases with a 130 grain bullet ahead of 60 grains of H4831 on a cool February day in a pre-64 model 70 in 270 Winchester constitutes Gross Incompetence then I suppose I am guilty. But, I know I have lots of company and that most others have never experienced what I did that day. I know some unbelievable loads have been fired in Model 70s with disasterous results but the load I was using doesn't qualify as such in my book or a lot of reloading manuals either for that matter of fact.

I don't have a building full of trophies shot with a model 70 or any rifle for that matter. My modest number of big game animals shot is nothing compared to many who have hunted as long as I have. But for every head of big game I have shot in the past forty years or more I'm sure I have fired close to 1000 rounds at paper targets and varmints. The biggest share of these were my own handloads. I enjoy shooting and have shot most every make of rifle at one time or another. I do like the features found on a model 70, in fact several rifles I now own have those same features even though they don't say Winchester on them. I also realize someday that someone probably is going to build a new "Rifleman's Rifle" if only because of the fact the model 70 has not changed a great deal since copying the 1903 Springfield in the days of the model 54. Sure, they have added a few things such as a trigger and safety that are legend but the basic action is still 1903 Springfield. The basic difference is the ejector and I'm not sure that was a big improvement. I do think that the Montana action is an improvement on the basic design of the Springfield and model 70 and if things progress as they seemingly are it could very well become the new "Rifleman's Rifle". This may sound like to high a praise for a new action, and bad remarks towards an old standard that almost all actions were measured against for decades but it surely could happen. The fact that this company in Kalispell is asking what shooters want is a positive sign in my book.

[ 02-12-2003, 23:27: Message edited by: Idared ]

Idared,

Well put. Hats off to you. Nuff said.

Idared,
Very well said. Montana Riflery sought input from hunters and shooters and analyzed what is right and what is wrong with a number of different actions and built what they feel is a better mousetrap. There will be a lot of naysayers that favor their own pet brand of rifle or action and they have probably earned that allegence from years of use. I think that the rifle will have to build some of their reputation by it's use in the field. But from what I have seen of it, I feel we have a winner on our hands and I do not need to wait for someone else to tell me it's value.

I will order one very soon.

Somebody ask about the problems, changes, and suggestions made by people that *KNOW* actions and what they should be.

I talked to Rod just after the show and I think we were both surprised at the shortness of the list.

Jerry Fisher pointed out that the gas vent holes were on the center-line of the action. That means if the action is inletted to the centerline and those holes not cleared of wood, a primer failure could break the stock.

Several noticed there wasn't enough metal behind the rear tang screw to reshape the tang like a pre-war and Dakota. The one maker that said the pre-war/Dakota tang was a dumb idea and the Montana was better was Pete Grisel.....the man that designed the Dakota.

The most often-made negative comment was about the "rind" around the rear tang. It was pretty much agreed by every stockmaker that saw it that to bed such a thing tightly would guarantee a shower of chips like a firecracker in a Pringles can.

Rod explained that it wasn't practical or maybe even possible, to cast a sharp edge. We had a good discussion about how best to remove the rind or to change the tang shape while retaining it. Fortunately, it's an easy thing to remove.

We also talked about the hardness of the action and the processes needed to draw it back to an easily engraved state.

I've found cooresponding with MRC has been a great experience with very knowledgable people that are really and truly trying to give a very well designed action of good material and a VERY low price to the gun world.

It's been a LONG TIME A COMMIN! !!!

I applaud them and hope they succeed and flourish.

I have a request.

I have ordered two of the M1999, and after reading all of the posts I am looking forward to stocking these. My personal experience has been limited to springfield/sako/mauser narrow tang actions. I like the looks and flexibility when shaping the grip. I think the curve of the tang will dictate the shape of the grip in this area. I have small hands, and the usual factory stock feels just a bit full here.

I hope that others who stock these will consider posting their experience with reshaping this area. I am not in a hurry, and I hope anyone who reshapes this area will post picutures of how they shaped the tang and stock.

Thanks

Roger

Is the extractor on the Montana made to grab the case harder when things go sticky? Just like the m-98 with the angeled slot in the bolt.

Stefan.

JBelk.

What is the advantages/problems with CM receivers opposed to SS receivers at the same hardness ??
Some say CM receivers will last longer - is that right ?

J. Blek,

You mentioned a few little problems that you saw with the Montana Actions...Are they something that can be addressed by the company prior to the release of these new actions? Or will the public have to deal with them?

Thanks
Frank D