Montana Rifle Company Junction 308Win Field Evaluation

[wind gypsy]

I’d like to think that too, but I’m afraid there are far more industry players who simply dismiss this forum entirely. Yes, some smaller players like Montana Rifle and Maven and Stocky’s do listen and I believe that will pay off for them economically, but the big names couldn’t care less. After all, this is the website that intentionally drops their $hit on the ground.

Sure there are. But it sure seems like the impact/influence is growing significantly.

5 years ago there wasn't scope mfr seeking input and actually acting on it. There wasn't stock manufactures smart enough to follow gunwerks' lead.

 

[robtattoo]

Form, can you give a little more explanation behind CRF and it's merits? I've always heard the pros being linked to what you call the Fudd argument so I am super interested to hear your reasoning expounded upon.

Will help me because I've always wanted a Kimber as well but the Adirondack 308 didn't have the 10 twist or so I thought.

As much as anything else; reliability.

Instead of having a tiny little extractor built into the bolt, with (usually) a pivot & spring which is overall maybe a half inch long & can get easily gummed up with old grease & grit. PLUS an ejector plunger with incredibly close tolerances inside the bolt face & needs to be depressed to actually chamber a round, you get a bolt length, external extractor. It relies on nothing but itself to work and has the added advantage of picking up each round from the mag & holding them to the bolt face.
The ejector is part of the action, not the bolt & is literally just a solid lump of steel that rides a slot in the bolt. The bolt has to be aaall the way back for it to eject a spent case (hence, the no short stroking) It also relies entirely of bolt speed to determine how far it ejects. The quicker you run the bolt, the farther it slings the brass.

Essentially (TL,DR) lots fewer moving parts = less to jam, break, lose or go wrong. Less h
& bigger parts to do the same job as more tiny ones. Short stroke elimination.

 

[SDHNTR]

Sure there are. But it sure seems like the impact/influence is growing significantly.

5 years ago there wasn't scope mfr seeking input and actually acting on it. There wasn't stock manufactures smart enough to follow gunwerks' lead.

When McMillian makes a RokStok knock off, or when Leupold or Vortex, or even Swaro makes a drop tested scope, that’s when a real impact has been made!

 

[wind gypsy]

When McMillian makes a RokStok knock off, or when Leupold or Vortex, or even Swaro makes a drop tested scope, that’s when a real impact has been made!

Cough. Mountaineer LR. Cough

 

[Formidilosus]

Form, can you give a little more explanation behind CRF and it's merits? I've always heard the pros being linked to what you call the Fudd argument so I am super interested to hear your reasoning expounded upon.

Mainly short stroking and causing a “double feed”. You push forward but don’t close the bolt so the extractor doesn’t grab rim, pull back and push forward again causing the next round to run into the round still sitting in the chamber.

Tikka or any push feed short stroking-





Properly timed CRF:

At the very last portion before the feed-lips releases the cartridge-



The moment the cartridge is released from the feed-lips, it immediately slide under the extractor and is totally controlled by the extractor. If you “short stroke” it, the round is just ejected.

 

[Formidilosus]

Essentially (TL,DR) lots fewer moving parts = less to jam, break, lose or go wrong. Less h
& bigger parts to do the same job as more tiny ones.

Actually it is much more difficult to make a legit reliable CRF than it does a PF. No CRF has passed or won a military sniper trial since the 80’s, and they have been entered. CRF done right is relatively difficult. But, CRF done right is slick as can be.

Short stroke elimination.

That’s the functional advantage. Also, in some ice conditions (some, not all).

 

[5811]

Mainly short stroking and causing a “double feed”. You push forward but don’t close the bolt so the extractor doesn’t grab rim, pull back and push forward again causing the next round to run into the round still sitting in the chamber.

Tikka or any push feed short stroking-

View attachment 690636



Properly timed CRF:

At the very last portion before the feed-lips releases the cartridge-
View attachment 690637


The moment the cartridge is released from the feed-lips, it immediately slide under the extractor and is totally controlled by the extractor. If you “short stroke” it, the round is just ejected.
View attachment 690639

Its pretty cool that you are willing to go take pictures and craft a post to answer a question. I also appreciated the explanation/visualization.

 

[OrangeMan73]

Its pretty cool that you are willing to go take pictures and craft a post to answer a question. I also appreciated the explanation/visualization.

Yes, agreed. Thank you much.

 

[JohnJohnson]

CRF has a mythos behind it due to old dangerous game hunters in Africa. Which isn't very relevant these days.

 

[bradmacmt]

For me, a "proper" rifle action is CRF. That's a personal bias, and in no way reflects the reality that CRF is not necessary for a quality, properly functioning rifle (reference the wonderful Tikka T3). I also love the simple pre-64 M70 trigger. It's a study in "less is more." Most of my rifles are tweaked Kimber MT's or stainless Winchester M70's, re-barreled, or otherwise restocked in fiberglass handles.

Having said all that, I don't "get" the new MRC. It seems like they don't know who their potential customer is. Mostly, the younger "flat brim generation" (not being pejorative here), if they even know what it is, could care less about CRF, while those of us that do won't care for the brown finish on the steel (fiberglass version), gold trigger and band on the bolt (WTF?), muzzle brake, tacticool bolt handle, built-in rail, and, as if there wasn't enough verbage on the rifle, did they really have to put a big "M" engraved into the tang? The gun world is out of control on obnoxious branding. While funtion doesn't follow aesthetics, I threw up a little in my mouth taking in this rifle as a whole.

Again, I'm not sure they understand who their market is, because I'd sooner build something on an M70 action, or if I wanted lighter, build or buy something on a Kimber MT 84/8400 action or an M700 clone action.

As an aside, I give them credit for machining the action out of solid bar stock rather than investment casting. That's huge! And while I don't necessarily need or care for an integral scope base (I've JB Welded bases to rifle receivers for 35 years), it is a very nice feature, even if it's limiting to choices.

 

[DangerRanger]

the only failure I’ve had from my comp gun (tikka) is the ejector getting stuck from a brass shaving. Theretically a mechanical ejector fixes that

So did me backing down my load a grain tho

 

[Nhenry]

Actually it is much more difficult to make a legit reliable CRF than it does a PF. No CRF has passed or won a military sniper trial since the 80’s, and they have been entered. CRF done right is relatively difficult. But, CRF done right is slick as can be.





That’s the functional advantage. Also, in some ice conditions (some, not all).

I know the Sako 85 action gets a lot of flack because of the ejection angle on the L actions, but I thoroughly enjoyed owning one (an M sized lefty Bavarian) because of the CRF. It was probably the most reliable action I've ever used.

 

[DJL2]

I’d like to think that too, but I’m afraid there are far more industry players who simply dismiss this forum entirely. Yes, some smaller players like Montana Rifle and Maven and Stocky’s do listen and I believe that will pay off for them economically, but the big names couldn’t care less. After all, this is the website that intentionally drops their $hit on the ground.

You may not be wrong.... but, I don't need mass market changes. We as a community will win HUGE if a handful or artisans take their craft seriously. If the rest of the folks out there have an a ha moment and it moves the larger market - even better.

A true Pre-64 homage is worth doing right. I'll take one with a straight/reverse comb in maple, please ;-).

@bradmacmt

I guess I'm too old to be a part of the flat brim generation now? Damn it...

 

[Formidilosus]

Having said all that, I don't "get" the new MRC. It seems like they don't know who their potential customer is.

It seems they may be trying to get a new customer base other than the two below- which I appreciate.

Mostly, the younger "flat brim generation" (not being pejorative here), if they even know what it is, could care less about CRF,

For now. However, knowledge of reliability and compromised triggers is growing steadily. There was quite bit of talk about it around the 2010 time frame, then some of the people with the data set stopped, and the new savior (trigger tech) was supposed to have fixed it. It took time for people to start seeing that it didn’t fix the inherent problems. It’ll take time for people to see the benefit of a properly done CRF and trigger too, but it’s possible.

while those of us that do won't care for the brown finish on the steel (fiberglass version), gold trigger and band on the bolt (WTF?), muzzle brake, tacticool bolt handle, built-in rail, and,

That’s true, but let’s be honest- those people, old curmudgeons, etc. don’t buy new rifles. At least not in any volume that matters.


The hassle brake comes off and is really just a cover for the threads, though the barrels should be shorter. The bolt handle Junction is nicely done in shape and size, and I agreed about the trigger- plain black would suit better. However, the integral picatinny rail is the way it should be. Better is simply better and pic rails and rings are the most durable and reliable mounting system on the market. They will make a non pic rail action if someone wants it.

as if there wasn't enough verbage on the rifle, did they really have to put a big "M" engraved into the tang?
The gun world is out of control on obnoxious branding. While funtion doesn't follow aesthetics, I threw up a little in my mouth taking in this rifle as a whole.

The synthetic one is a bit off to me- like Christianson’s design with Browning’s gaudiness.


They really should focus on non flashy, bombproof rifles that are designed well and just work better- that is the market that is open.




On a whole other subject, I believe it was you that I first read talking about the Grohmann Canadian Belt knife- if so, you were correct. Thats probably the best blade and handle shape for a field knife I have used.

 

[Scottyboy]

On a whole other subject, I believe it was you that I first read talking about the Grohmann Canadian Belt knife- if so, you were correct. Thats probably the best blade and handle shape for a field knife I have used.

Please do not start on knives, you have costed me enough money as-is!! But, if you want to start dropping (or the knife equivalent) knives I’d send a few in!

Back on topic, it’s good to see the rifle coming to its true potential. I had a MRC when they were in MT, while this model isn’t my cup-o-tea, it does have my interest ever so slightly. Do you have any time estimates you/ryan/um spent going over it getting it to current shooting state? I’m just struggling to find the pros to buy one of these vs a um rs tik))* special for a few bucks more.

 

[Formidilosus]

Do you have any time estimates you/ryan/um spent going over it getting it to current shooting state?

Oh if I were sitting at UM the whole time, an hour or so would have done it. Most of my time was spent step by step trying to diagnose. And, I expect that won’t be necessary anymore.

I’m just struggling to find the pros to buy one of these vs a um rs tik))* special for a few bucks more.

Depends on what you want. The way they have the MRC rifles configured does not fit what I need/want- their synthetic stock choice would need to be replaced immediately, and I am not interested in a modern rifle with a compromised sporting stock of the Junction.

An MRC with 18” or 20” light threaded barrel, correct twists, either synthetic (or better) a wood correctly designed stock, detachable mags that work, with proper QC/QA… yeah. I’m about that life.

A modern sporting version of a Parker Hale M85 would make an excellent field rifle.

 

[ETtikka]

I suppose when you copy a design from the 1930s, that QA and QC still mean everything, thanks for the review Form!

 

[Castle Rock]

So have they addressed the gas handling issues inherent with the Pre 64 design

 

[bradmacmt]

They really should focus on non flashy, bombproof rifles that are designed well and just work better- that is the market that is open.

I agree, and that's the essence of my post.

As to the built-in rail, I'm not referring to the Weaver/Picatinny, I'm talking about the M-Lok rail under the forearm. A weird choice for a rifle that's being presented as a "classic" wood stocked crf rifle.

On a whole other subject, I believe it was you that I first read talking about the Grohmann Canadian Belt knife- if so, you were correct. Thats probably the best blade and handle shape for a field knife I have used.

Yes, that's me. It's a really under appreciated design!

 

[SDHNTR]

I agree, and that's the essence of my post.

As to the built-in rail, I'm not referring to the Weaver/Picatinny, I'm talking about the M-Lok rail under the forearm. A weird choice for a rifle that's being presented as a "classic" wood stocked crf rifle.


Yes, that's me. It's a really under appreciated design!

I have the folding version of the Grohman Canadian Belt Knife. Every time I put it to work with anyone watching they wanna know more about it. I love the way it zips up under hide.