|
|
Post by elkman1310 on Oct 17, 2014 18:29:02 GMT -5
A good friend of mine owns Lawyton Machine in Montana. They made custom bench rest actions and barrels a few years ago. Then Barney the co-owner died. That left everything in a mess.
My buddy who owns the business is interested in building and selling a action just for smokeless muzzle loaders. The big hurdle is to make the action muzzle loader specific so there is no FFL requirement. I believe the only way to get around the FFL is to offer a action that doesn't have lugs. Because what there telling him is if you can take the muzzle loader barrel off and install any barrel other barrel on that could be used with a metallic cartridge it would require a FFL lic.
I believe this is correct. Does the new Remington Ultimate require a FFL reg. even though its called a muzzle loader. A T/C requires a Reg. and so does a CVA Apex.
So boy's give me some feed back on what might work.
|
|
|
|
Post by hankinsrfls on Oct 17, 2014 18:56:37 GMT -5
I'd love to see a custom action designed a little shorter than the standard Remington 700 short action,, but if it don't have locking lugs I would never buy one...
What's the big deal about a 4473 ATF form anyway.. Unless your a felon and not allowed to own a fire arm you have nothing to worry about. If you are a felon you don't need a firearm, unless you want a fast trip back to the pen...
Jeff
|
|
|
|
Post by elkman1310 on Oct 17, 2014 19:18:53 GMT -5
Hi Jeff! I really wouldn't want it any shorter than the REM S/A. I doubt to many felons would be buying a high end single shot Muzzle loader anyway. But from a business stand point a true muzzle loader action that didn't require the FFL would be nice. The vast majority of muzzle loaders sold in the USA don't require any registration.
Jeff does your plug seal on the front or does it have a small flange on the rear. I was a little skeptical about trying the two sealing surfaces way but it works very well. I do believe the brass washer might hold up better than the S/S washer. You will get a little crush with the brass. I have yet to see gun powder burn through a brass shell casing. 260 brass would be as soft as I would go.
Well if you went with no lugs you would be stepping on Savages patent and if you copy Remington's muzzle loader bolt your stepping on their patent. Everyone copies something.
I would like them to make a replacement bolt for the 700 S/A and have the front cut out to hold a shorten shell casing like the Savage holds a 209 primer. I suggested that today but my buddy wants it to feed like his ultimate MZ and like my design. I told him it would be no problem to just slide the case in and then back out of the bolt face. But some people are darn right lazy. He wants it to operate like a regular center fire. Hey Jeff how much do you get for your smooth sizing die?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 19:20:54 GMT -5
we have been needing a ML specific action for a long time, my thoughts would be an action with lugs and two different bolts, one specific for 209s and one with a CF boltface. I too see no biggie on the 4473.
with two different bolts using the same action both camps would be happy and so would the ATF.
rem 700 footprint with a very short bolt throw/ cut out and a milled in boltstop for removal.
there are lots of guys wanting a cheap action to build on, such a bird dosent exist unless you use what we are using now. one can use a savage CF or stevens for a cheap build and go either CF or 209 but then you are challenged with parts being few with not much to choose from.
a good quality receiver will not be cheap and we might as well face that fact..
|
|
|
|
Post by elkman1310 on Oct 17, 2014 19:46:29 GMT -5
Hey he just asked me what it take to make it muzzle loader only! No the FFL is not a deal breaker. I am just sharing the question with everyone.
The other thing is it wouldn't be cheap. Hey I just took a Pierce action on a partial payment on one of my light gun rifle rests I build for 1000 yard comp. The Pierce actions are just an improved Rem 700 with tighter tol. and they go for $950 without a trigger.
I don't know what kind of money this new action would sell for. I would like to see the locking lugs on the rear of the bolt. that would give you a lot more options with the nose of the bolt and breech plug design.
I would be happy with a replacement bolt for the REM 700. that holds a short shell casing like a 209 primer that is certainly doable
|
|
40xml
Button Buck
Posts: 14
|
Post by 40xml on Oct 17, 2014 20:28:07 GMT -5
I would like to see rear lugs to make it easier for a brass primer holder to get to the breach plug. A coned bolt would help also.
|
|
|
|
Post by 7mmfreak on Oct 17, 2014 21:57:49 GMT -5
The biggest issue with an action requiring a 4473 is that you then must have an FFL to do the work instead of the way most of the builds are getting done now. That's good for Jeff and the centerfire is the way to go but there are more guns built on 700ML and ML-II than anything else because of the number of guys working on them. If the new action requires an FFL then those guys either quit screwing together guns or they get an FFL and then depending on what they are doing (or how willing they are to risk it) they must ITAR register. I'm sure I'm going to catch a backlash from someone on that but rules are rules and ignorance of the law will not protect you although a lot of boutique shops are not currently registered when in fact they should be. Do it wrong, get caught, and then you will be in deep very quickly.
That said my vote would be for an action like State Arms uses so that you have a short, rigid action where the bolt allows for removal and loading. That makes the most sense to me for a primer module and making an action like that (Wby type lugs vice Rem lugs) is easier and cheaper to make.
|
|
|
|
Post by bestill on Oct 17, 2014 23:06:11 GMT -5
Knight mountaineer with bare 209 primer bolt assy is pretty good also uses timney trigger. Needs to be redesigned with lugs but is short and pretty good. Be worth cking out for some design ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by airborneike on Oct 17, 2014 23:28:52 GMT -5
Lot of folks on this board would be unhappy if they had to get a FFL to work on muzzle loaders.
I believe Lawtom mfg would have a much larger market if they can design a custom ML action that is free of ATF regulations.
ATF, FFL, ITAR, Excise taxes sure takes some of the fun out of ML's
7mmfreak, shouldn't be any backlash because you wrote the truth....I have known smith's who ignored the ITAR regs and got seriously burned!
Same for some who built guns under an 01 when they should have had an 07. ATF is not hard to work with but some agents have zero tolerance.
|
|
|
|
Post by hydrodog on Oct 18, 2014 5:52:48 GMT -5
How about a nice falling block action. A larger version of the EABCO 97d would be nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigiron on Oct 18, 2014 8:04:02 GMT -5
I have often wondered if a Rem. 788 action could be used as a platform for SML. Anyone have thoughts on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by 7mmfreak on Oct 18, 2014 10:01:04 GMT -5
The 788 bolt is sort of what I had in mind, although much shorter (like bolt face right in front of lugs) but with a front receiver ring like a Mauser. Instead of lug abutments you leave it solid as a place for the breach-plug. That should make it unusable for center-fire conversion so might be ATF compliant. If you did that all at the manufacturer you could eliminate headspacing issues as you would have a bolt, receiver, and BP made for one another. Then barrels would be fitted like they are for a Mauser.
|
|
|
|
Post by elkman1310 on Oct 18, 2014 10:14:10 GMT -5
Thanks for all the input. Just about any center fire action could be used Really the Savage action works well . Luke has a 209 bolt nose to change the bolt. And there have been guys that have taken a 223 bolt face and cut it out to hold a shorten 308 case. You can buy the bare bolt nose pretty cheap. I even thought about trying that.
I bought the 209 adaptor from Luke last year I may use it for a light gun build and use the Savage plug for ease of use.
You do want a short ridged round action. I looked at the Knight action that would be nice if it was scaled up to except a barrel shank of at least Savage dimensions. A action built on the same foot print as the Remington or Savage has all after market goodies available.
They will always be a debate on whether it should require a FFL or not. I doubt anyone can find were a muzzle loader was used in any type of robbery or murder in the USA in the last 25 years. That's one of the reasons a muzzle loader doesn't fall under the same registration rules as a modern firearm.
|
|
|
|
Post by GMB54-120 on Oct 18, 2014 10:55:43 GMT -5
NULA model 20 type action. Its basically a CF action with a rear dual lug 22RF type bolt. Very compact (20oz) and no lugs in front. The bolt handle is one lug and it has another opposite the bolt handle. All it needs to be a non firearm is a bolt that is unique in OD to the ML build and that CF or RF bolts wont interchange. Simple but not cheap. Bolt face is recessed to fully support the 209 primer when closed  |
|
|
|
Post by dave d. on Oct 18, 2014 19:33:24 GMT -5
Regardless of how you design your ml action it should have a 700 footprint for ease of aftermarket parts. I like the rear lug idea along with a true quick bolt release not these receivers bolts. So Nula bolt with 209 head to get away from the form and 700 footprint no magwell will work just fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagittarius on Oct 18, 2014 21:36:30 GMT -5
I like my MLII just fine but there is not a chance I would ever buy another action without locking lugs. Not a Chance !!!  I would be more than happy to fill out the forms !  |
|
|
|
Post by jsthntn247 on Oct 20, 2014 14:51:13 GMT -5
I don't really see a market for a high end muzzleloader action that will cost 1k when any pawn shop Savage or Remmy action will work for under 300$ with a few mods. High end centerfire actions are needed because case alignmnet with the bore and bolt face along with increased primary extraction which is not needed with a muzzleloader where the barrel and breech plug are doing all the work.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratsnakeboogy on Oct 20, 2014 15:03:50 GMT -5
I like the NULA bolt design as well, maybe one for 209s and another for LRMP?
That would be sweet depending on what money we are talking.
|
|
|
|
Post by 7mmfreak on Oct 20, 2014 15:11:09 GMT -5
I like the NULA bolt design as well, maybe one for 209s and another for LRMP? That would be sweet depending on what money we are talking. A NULA rimfire action is $750 in single-shot configuration. I paid $1500 for my NULA M209 so I would say the muzzleloader action costs about the same. |
|
|
|
Post by sagittarius on Oct 22, 2014 8:41:56 GMT -5
Nothing against NULA but I would rather put that $750.00 toward a Bat action if I'm going custom. Yes, the Bat cost around $500.00 more but can be had with a picatinny base, a left hand loading port, with right hand bolt! It would be worth every penny of that extra $500.00 with those features to me. |
|
|
|
Post by dave d. on Oct 22, 2014 9:02:16 GMT -5
Integrated lug and base would be a bonus.
|
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Oct 22, 2014 11:40:49 GMT -5
Integrated lug and base ups manufacturing cost.
The use of rear locking lugs eliminates the raceways in the area of the loading port making a siffer action. A Remy 788 style SA with a solid floor would be interesting.
I already have my prints for a action.
|
|
