I'm curious about this statement. I've never heard of any extraction problems with .30-06 95's {other than typical lack of primary extraction which is common to all 95's and most levers in-general}. Are you sure the problem guns you are referring to weren't modified 7.62x53R ex-Russky guns? I'm not disputing with you here, just curious about your experience.

I was in the retail business about the time the long-action BLR hit the market. I agree with you. It is a club. I have to confess tho, the thing did make me really wonder about rebarreling one of the .300's to .458. As I understand it, some fellows have done just that to resurrect the .450 Alaskan concept in a modern rifle. Essentially the BLR is a bolt action with a lever, i.e. front locking lugs and thus does not have the action stretch issues that plague heavily loaded 95's. Some of the old time writers suggested that the 95 is a weaker action than the 1886/71, and I think I agree with that.

The aluminum actioned BLR's certainly must cure the deadweight problem, but I can only guess what the action would look like after some time in the field. I have never been a fan of aluminum on a gun.

I guess you could always neck up the .30 Blaser or use as-is. I believe that one is a .30-06 length cartridge.

By the way, I wondered if you were from Suomi. Years ago I used to correspond with the late PT Kekkonen and he mentioned the 95 was not only common in Suomi, but also years ago was commonly modified and sporterized for hunting hirvi, and rebarreled after the law change {early 50's if I remember correctly} requiring the 8,2x53R minimum. That's part of the reason I am wondering if the guns with extraction problems you mention were 7.62x53R rifles rebarreled to .30-06. The old {and dangerous} Bannerman Mosin-Nagant conversions {7.62 Russian to .30-06} kept the same extractor, relying on the "throw" of the spring to provide adequate grip on the .30-06 case. This was one of many reasons these conversions were poor and shouldn't be fired.