Montana Rifle Company factory visit

[Imac45acp]

What type of crown are they using on their barrels?
What I liked about the old MRC was the customization you could do. On mine I had the barrel shortened to 22”, added a barrel swivel post and had it ceracoated. I wish I would have added a muzzle break so my daughter could shoot it. The full recoil of the .416 Rigby is a little much for her.

Crown is a recessed dish (flat). Unfortunately, we don't have the capacity at the moment for custom orders.

Imac45acp, any idea s or updates on when you will be rolling out new 404 Jeffery(s)?

404J won't be happening for a while. If I had to put a date on it, I'd say early next year.

so that means no 416 Rigby or 505 Gibbs but every other DG cartridge should fit (I think).

Case length isn't the issue with these cartridges, it's the base diameter. The Rigby and Gibbs rounds' case head is too large to fit comfortably in the bolt head.

The Tsavo in 375H&H is the first that will be available. The first run of barrels are being processed right now, and the production receivers are going in the machine in a few weeks.

 

[Muskox]

I would offer the Tsavo with the integral weaver bases. It is dumb. to bolt on bases when you have the option of not doing it. Pretty does not a guide rifle make. There is a reason the CZ 550 and Brno 602 are the most popular professional hunter rifles in Africa. They have integral mounts.

This is the kind of "he he, we are bowhunters" shit that is retarded.

Especially with the 416 Remington, the 375 is probably ok. the 416 and the 458 are another level on eating scope mounts.

Talley is a perfect example of making shit to be pretty that sucks on heavy recoiling rifle. I have my face eaten by a 340 Weatherby mounted rifle scope in Talleys years ago, and I will speak their level of suck until I die.

Now 416 Remingtons just eat scope mounts as a profession. You need something integral.

This isn't even a negotiable thing.

If you don't make them that way I will find a used Montana with integrals and rebarrel it.

 

[HookMeUpII]

I very much like their rifles. I think they are definitely one of the better rifles for the money these days. The horizontal lugs and their CRF make them modern day classics.

Trying to decide if I want something bigger in .4xx in a bolt gun. If I end up going that route, and they have an offering, they are likely going to be on my short list.

 

[BJH65]

I would offer the Tsavo with the integral weaver bases. It is dumb. to bolt on bases when you have the option of not doing it. Pretty does not a guide rifle make. There is a reason the CZ 550 and Brno 602 are the most popular professional hunter rifles in Africa. They have integral mounts.

This is the kind of "he he, we are bowhunters" shit that is retarded.

Especially with the 416 Remington, the 375 is probably ok. the 416 and the 458 are another level on eating scope mounts.

Talley is a perfect example of making shit to be pretty that sucks on heavy recoiling rifle. I have my face eaten by a 340 Weatherby mounted rifle scope in Talleys years ago, and I will speak their level of suck until I die.

Now 416 Remingtons just eat scope mounts as a profession. You need something integral.

The vast majority of African PH’s do not use optics on their big bore stopping rifles when guiding clients for DG so I do not think they care to much about the integral bases on the BRNO ZKK-602 or CZ 550 Magnum rifles. They primarily use them because they are tough well made rifles which is why they refer to them as the “crowbar of Africa.”

I’ve fired several hundred rounds of 416 Rem Mag through my Winchester M70’s with the Leupold QD bases and rings, the one’s with the post, and they’ve held up perfectly fine as well as the identical set up on my custom Remington 700 375 RUM with same scope mounting setup. Zero issues.

 

[Imac45acp]

@Muskox , what's with the hate? Bowhunting has nothing to do with offering the Tsavo with the a classic style receiver profile. Why do you think every other rifle we offer has an integral pic base? Because it makes sense. Do some research on what your fellow AH members reaction to our integral mounts was. By in large, THIS market wants the traditional style so they can put their favorite mounts on. This opinion has been repeated time and again to the point of many customers/dealers stating they won't buy it with the integral mounts. You're welcome to buy the Brooks, which will retain the pic mount. That's what I'll personally be doing for the heavy caliber guns. Or just don't buy one.

Do I bow hunt? Yes, I picked up archery about 8 years ago and love the challenge. Prior to that, it was exclusively guns, which I've been building and designing for nearly 30 years. The company hired me because of my FIREARMS background. Trust me, we're on the same page on the mount thing. Unfortunately, we're both in the minority.

 

[Daisy]

@Muskox , what's with the hate? Bowhunting has nothing to do with offering the Tsavo with the a classic style receiver profile. Why do you think every other rifle we offer has an integral pic base? Because it makes sense. Do some research on what your fellow AH members reaction to our integral mounts was. By in large, THIS market wants the traditional style so they can put their favorite mounts on. This opinion has been repeated time and again to the point of many customers/dealers stating they won't buy it with the integral mounts. You're welcome to buy the Brooks, which will retain the pic mount. That's what I'll personally be doing for the heavy caliber guns. Or just don't buy one.

Do I bow hunt? Yes, I picked up archery about 8 years ago and love the challenge. Prior to that, it was exclusively guns, which I've been building and designing for nearly 30 years. The company hired me because of my FIREARMS background. Trust me, we're on the same page on the mount thing. Unfortunately, we're both in the minority.

Don’t respond to everyone’s pet peeves around here. You will be chasing your tail.

Do what sells and do it well. Glad to have you back in business.

 

[Muskox]

@Muskox , what's with the hate? Bowhunting has nothing to do with offering the Tsavo with the a classic style receiver profile. Why do you think every other rifle we offer has an integral pic base? Because it makes sense. Do some research on what your fellow AH members reaction to our integral mounts was. By in large, THIS market wants the traditional style so they can put their favorite mounts on. This opinion has been repeated time and again to the point of many customers/dealers stating they won't buy it with the integral mounts. You're welcome to buy the Brooks, which will retain the pic mount. That's what I'll personally be doing for the heavy caliber guns. Or just don't buy one.

Do I bow hunt? Yes, I picked up archery about 8 years ago and love the challenge. Prior to that, it was exclusively guns, which I've been building and designing for nearly 30 years. The company hired me because of my FIREARMS background. Trust me, we're on the same page on the mount thing. Unfortunately, we're both in the minority.

Not really hate. Just want integral mounts.

My Archery hate comes from the Unknown Munitions podcast. I heard someone say sheepishly a couple of times that they were primarily an archery company. So not knocking you per se, just thought that was a stupid thing to tell a bunch of gun hunter and prospective buyers.

 

[HookMeUpII]

I would offer the Tsavo with the integral weaver bases. It is dumb. to bolt on bases when you have the option of not doing it. Pretty does not a guide rifle make. There is a reason the CZ 550 and Brno 602 are the most popular professional hunter rifles in Africa. They have integral mounts.

This is the kind of "he he, we are bowhunters" shit that is retarded.

Especially with the 416 Remington, the 375 is probably ok. the 416 and the 458 are another level on eating scope mounts.

Talley is a perfect example of making shit to be pretty that sucks on heavy recoiling rifle. I have my face eaten by a 340 Weatherby mounted rifle scope in Talleys years ago, and I will speak their level of suck until I die.

Now 416 Remingtons just eat scope mounts as a profession. You need something integral.

This isn't even a negotiable thing.

If you don't make them that way I will find a used Montana with integrals and rebarrel it.

Just so I understand your logic: You are suggesting integral, machined, Weaver bases, that then have rings pinch-bolted onto?

I'm not even arguing the efficacy of the CZ550 or BRNO 602. There are now two failure points. You're pinch/compression mounting rings to the rifle receiver. You still have 1) a failure point if the scope is not lapped and torqued properly into the rings and 2) a failure point of the rings pinch-compressed onto the integral Weaver mount.

You said you hate Talley, which is fine. However, with their alloy base/ring combo and the 2x2 bolt design, I can tell you the bottom half of the ring-base isn't going anywhere. Maybe if you drop it off a cliff. 2x2 bolt design x 2 (which is then 4x4) all torqued to 18 in/lbs, you probably have enough to withstand 100 lbs of recoil or more. So now you only have one failure point: The potential the scope is not lapped and torqued properly into the rings. Talley says no need to lap with the alloy bases. You can leave it up to your judgement. That's another topic though.

As for PH's using irons only, that's probably true and a different story. I can't dispute that.

I think you're bit off on the failure points.

 

[Muskox]

Do

Just so I understand your logic: You are suggesting integral, machined, Weaver bases, that then have rings pinch-bolted onto?

I'm not even arguing the efficacy of the CZ550 or BRNO 602. There are now two failure points. You're pinch/compression mounting rings to the rifle receiver. You still have 1) a failure point if the scope is not lapped and torqued properly into the rings and 2) a failure point of the rings pinch-compressed onto the integral Weaver mount.

You said you hate Talley, which is fine. However, with their alloy base/ring combo and the 2x2 bolt design, I can tell you the bottom half of the ring-base isn't going anywhere. Maybe if you drop it off a cliff. 2x2 bolt design x 2 (which is then 4x4) all torqued to 18 in/lbs, you probably have enough to withstand 100 lbs of recoil or more. So now you only have one failure point: The potential the scope is not lapped and torqued properly into the rings. Talley says no need to lap with the alloy bases. You can leave it up to your judgement. Different story.

As for PH's using irons only, that's probably true and a different story. I can't dispute that.

I think you're bit off on the failure points.

I am not a professional gunsmith anymore, but I have been working on guns for over 30 years, and spent 20 years working on military firearms in the service. I fully understand how recoil can damage mounting systems. My most recent situation came from SIGARMS and the new military service pistol and SIG's failure to install a rear recoil lug abutment on the site base. I served as the investigating safety officer for several cases of failed mounts on the new SIGarms service pistol. I investigated it and fought with the Contracting Officers for the Army to get SIG to create a fix. Some other idiot contracting officer decided that SIG wasn't responsible for the fix. The Army came up with a solution based on red locktite. Mostly it worked for about 1000 rounds.

The pinched points are not the recoil bearing surface, the horizontal machined female parts hold the recoil for the integral mounts. The rings male parts butt up against them fore and aft. CZ/Brno, Sako and Ruger have their own system where a recoil lug abuts the a piece of steel. Or in the Case of CZ and Sako a wedge.

Talleys generally fail at the base on the left or right section of the ring where they are pinched on. Some people like them. My understanding is that the newer Talleys are tougher.

Lapped rings may or may not help. Lapped rings can create issues as well, if the created is an uneven surface. Unless this is done in a mill, it is hard to create perfectly concentric with your hands and a hardened piece of steel. There is quite a bit of technique to it.

I don't know the percentage of professional hunters and guides without scopes on their rifles. I have seen a lot of low power variables and things like Aimpoints on hunting shows lately. I have not done a count, and I don't know that it would be correct. I suspect that at least half or more of all rifles in the hands of African PH's have some sort of a low powered scope. In Alaska and the Yukon that number will be 90% or more.

As a consumer, hunter and rifle builder myself I want things the way I want them. I have ruined a lot of scope mounts. A couple of times it has ruined a hunt.

 

[HookMeUpII]

Do


I am not a professional gunsmith anymore, but I have been working on guns for over 30 years, and spent 20 years working on military firearms in the service. I fully understand how recoil can damage mounting systems. My most recent situation came from SIGARMS and the new military service pistol and SIG's failure to install a rear recoil lug abutment on the site base. I served as the investigating safety officer for several cases of failed mounts on the new SIGarms service pistol. I investigated it and fought with the Contracting Officers for the Army to get SIG to create a fix. Some other idiot contracting officer decided that SIG wasn't responsible for the fix. The Army came up with a solution based on red locktite. Mostly it worked for about 1000 rounds.

The pinched points are not the recoil bearing surface, the horizontal machined female parts hold the recoil for the integral mounts. The rings male parts butt up against them fore and aft. CZ/Brno, Sako and Ruger have their own system where a recoil lug abuts the a piece of steel. Or in the Case of CZ and Sako a wedge.

Talleys generally fail at the base on the left or right section of the ring where they are pinched on. Some people like them. My understanding is that the newer Talleys are tougher.

Lapped rings may or may not help. Lapped rings can create issues as well, if the created is an uneven surface. Unless this is done in a mill, it is hard to create perfectly concentric with your hands and a hardened piece of steel. There is quite a bit of technique to it.

I don't know the percentage of professional hunters and guides without scopes on their rifles. I have seen a lot of low power variables and things like Aimpoints on hunting shows lately. I have not done a count, and I don't know that it would be correct. I suspect that at least half or more of all rifles in the hands of African PH's have some sort of a low powered scope. In Alaska and the Yukon that number will be 90% or more.

As a consumer, hunter and rifle builder myself I want things the way I want them. I have ruined a lot of scope mounts. A couple of times it has ruined a hunt.

In a friendly disagreement, I agree with you on a couple things. First, I agree, you don't see many PH's with scopes on their DG rifle. It's either a bolt gun with irons or a double with irons. From what I've seen. Second, I don't have a lot of experience with QDs. Some people like them, some don't. Seems to be another failure point. Maybe one day I'll give it a shot, I'm open to it. Once again, seems like something else to fail.

I just disagree with you on the engineering of the mount. A pinched-bolted Weaver base/ring is simply, another failure point. Proper torque, thread locking compound, and proper installation go a long way. However, it's still a pinch point mounting system. The recoil lug on the ring base in the rear of the CZ550 is helpful for sure. I feel better about a 2x2 x 2 alloy ring/base combo. You are correct. The new Talley stuff is much better. It's high strength aircraft aluminum.

You could even make the argument that an integral Weaver base receiver and Talley integrated rings/bases have the same number of failure points. Two and two. I just look at it like this: You have mostly horizontal recoil competing against a mount where the ability to fail is in the same direction - Weaver. In the case of the integrated rings/bases, it's horizontal recoil competing against a mount that would need fail by shearing metal, horizontally against vertical torque. - Talley

I think even in the case of a vertical-bolted Weaver mount, to Weaver bases, and Weaver rings, your more common failure point is probably the base/rings vs. the vertical-bolted Weaver mount.

I think we can agree to disagree on this a bit. Maybe not as harshly.

Might even be a moot point in the end because I can't seem to find any Talley or other integrated rings/bases for MRC rifles...at this time.