Yes, m&9, you might be "stuck" with the Lott.

The angle of entry is the thing, and that is controlled by release from the magazine. This is why my 9.3x62 feeds perfectly, but the 6.5x55 would not.

I "proved" my theory when the gun was a 6.5x55 by assembling a cobbled up dummy round using a .30-06 case and a 9.3 bullet. It became obvious that the longer round would release properly and angle of entry would be correct, so I had the rebarrel done. Works slick as a lie thru Barry now.

The good thing about the Lott is that it can be loaded to whatever speed you like; full Lott or downloaded to .458 Mag or even lower to .45-70. Not a bad deal, really.

By the way, tho I very much like the Ruger M77MKII and Hawkeye actions, the issue described in the article with the Ruger M77MKII {Win 70-style ejector} is correct. This concern also applies to the Win 70 and CZ with their similarly designed ejectors. But both the Win 70 and CZ normally have much stronger springs.

I experienced this failure in one MKII in 6.5x55 which otherwise worked perfectly. Hard, fast, vigorous working of the bolt would leave the case inexplicably in the feed trough. Then we figured out what was happening. As the article says, a harder spring should be installed by Ruger. But we whipped the problem by bevelling the ejector slot with a jeweler's file. There were burrs that needed to be removed. High polish of the ejector itself makes it work slicker. Any M&&MKII or Hawkeye, should be RIGOROUSLY worked to prove the ejection of rounds. Because fast working of the bolt is required to cause the malfunction. And when does a fellow need to work the bolt fast????

Regardless, this veering from the original 98 design exposes yet again the genious of Mauser; the original is hard to beat.