Regarding the Ruger M77MKII ejector issue again, I seem to remember reading many years ago that the early Winchester Model 70's were known to possess less-than-100% reliability due to a similar occaisional failure of the ejector to clear the bolt head slot in time to strike the cartridge case.

The design seems inherently prone to this problem when compared to a 98 Mauser. The Mauser ejector "hangs out there in space" and can collect an abundance of muck before its action is impeded. The Ruger and I believe the M70 Winchester operate within a slot in the receiver which seems to beg to be clogged with dust. At any rate they must both rise at an angle to catch the slot in the bolt head and though they preclude the need to slot the left locking lug they do not add to the reliability of the action. Interestingly, tho possessing a springloaded extractor, my old .375 SAKO with its Mauser-type slotted lug and "hard" ejector has never failed me under any circumstances and that rifle has seen such conditions that I have literally had to hold it by the sling and run a garden hose over it to wash the mud off of it after a day's efforts in the field.

That Win 70's are known for their good performance overall would seem to imply that either the company mastered the problem or possibly even mere continued use polished and loosened the surfaces of the ejectors on guns in service to eliminate any binding that might otherwise have existed. The Ruger can be adjusted by polishing the ejector, cutting a slight knife edge over the top of it to ensure exit from the receiver slot and entry in the bolt head slot, and of course a new ejector spring can be fitted if one exists. Does Wolffe Springs make one?

By the way, on arrival home, every rifle I buy gets degreased with acetone and the action vigorously functioned and the trigger dry-fired at least 200 times before I even bother taking it to my range. A noticeable number of headaches are be both avoided and found using this approach. And once oiled such a prepared action feeds slick as a lie thru Willy.

Personally, I cannot fault this fellow's piece for promoting original Mausers and high quality duplicates. I also cannot see where a single "improved" Mauser action improves one single feature of functioning over the 98 except possibly in the one feature described below. Bad copies are just that, but no post-98 action I am familiar with possesses anything like the dead reliable status of a 98. And just to be fair, any unknown or new-to-owner 98 SHOULD BE VIGOROUSLY TESTED BEFORE BEING RELIED UPON. His bit on the use of different cartridges than those originally intended for a specific magazine in 98's is spot on, too. Every original Mauser magazine was designed for a specific cartridge and the bugs worked out before production. Essentially, there are no "generic boxes" fitted to Original Mausers.

One arguable improvement, if it can be called that, was made in some production Mausers and that was the grinding of the extractor to slip over a cartridge intentionally or otherwise dropped into the chamber. A bolt mistakenly dropped on top of such a round on an unaltered Mauser results in the instant creation of a slightly butt-heavy club and can be a challenge in the field to return said club back to its original status as a rifle. I drop my rounds into the magazine and never up the spout in any rifle I own so as to avoid the possibility of habit causing havoc when I am using one of my unaltered Mausers.

I have no need for a "dangerous game rifle" per se and probably never will, but I do have some thousands of dollars of livestock I have an all-to-frequent need to protect with a rifle and after losing a shot here and there due to troubles with rifle functioning I can unequivocally state that every single problem that cost me a shot on a stock-killer was with a an "improved" Mauser-type rifle and caused by a modification from the original Mauser 98 design.