Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Custom Rifles & Wildcats McMillan Hunter: Love the stock, dunno on QC...

Gentlemen,
I took delivery of this McMillan Hunter this morning, however, I didn't not get a chance to really look at it until this evening. It was intended for the Borden SSR 6.5 Creedmoor barreled action that arrives on Thursday. I knew that timeline was far too convenient...:-) Placed this order exactly 5 months ago today. Very much impressed with the feel of the stock(Love the palm swell), however, the detail work is not up to par for McMillan. I've never seen a McMillan crack in the way this one did. It would appear there was a void in mold which left nothing to support the exterior OD gel-coat. No hard hits or amazing drops. I don't even know how this happened. I KNOW they would not have shipped the stock in this shape. The outer and inner box were pristine and the stock was in bubble wrap...



I will say up front I have zero question that Kelly will make this right. Just surprised at what appears to be questionable QC...

Anyone else had their gelcoat to "cave" for lack of a better word?

Please do excuse the photos. It was difficult to capture the cracking with autofocus...





I don't know what to take away from this picture. I do have to wonder why they would ship this stock with the sling swivels completely out of time. Small detail but I've never seen this from McMillan before...


Regards, Matt.

It looks like poor QC to me. When you pay a premium price, you expect to get a premium product, so I'd have been pretty unhappy if it was mine.

Same crack/void thing happened to me on a gelcoat about 2 years ago, but it took several months for the crack to crumble and the void to show itself. I had them fix it and paint it.

Call McMillan to get an RA #....send it back noting all problems & concerns. That is poor QC on their end...not acceptable!!

I honestly doubt that QC would have caught it. It likely opened up when shipped. That is not the first McMillan stock I've seen chip there. The sharp corner in the mold is an ideal source for voids to occur between the gelcoat and cloth. I'm sure McMillan will fix it just fine.

I thought McMillan wouldn't do solid, molded-in colors?

They'll do olive, as they do the A-4 stocks for USMC.

Brad,
Kelly did say at one time they were not doing solid gelcoat colors for the public. OD in particular. The issue, at the time, was that people were complaining about mould lines and other cosmetic issues that are largely hidden with a swirl or paint. That said my first GA Precision M40A1-C(early 2002), built by Eric Reid, was a solid OD gelcoat. He built many more for me after that, all OD gelcoat, and only one that was painted(and I regret that). I personally like the look and don't have a problem with mould lines or cosmetic issues. I DO have a problem with this particular stock. It is hard to see, however, there is nothing supporting the gelcoat for a good bit...fwiw.

Regards, Matt.

Gentlemen,
Thank you for your input...

fwiw,
They are taking care of it...

Regards, Matt.

Thanks for the follow up Matt, my son has that same stock on his pre 64 M70 fwt .270 and seems to be very happy with it.

handwerk,
Yes Sir, for what it is worth. I really like the palm swell on this stock. It's exceptionally comfortable. Even more so than the Remington/Sako Varmint which is a personal favorite. The Finn's really must be on to something with stock design...;-).

Regards, Matt.

WOW

following this for McMillans reply and turnaround

that's just not good.

It seems as though McMillan is taking care of it for Matt and although he's probably not pleased it happened, he does seem reasonably happy they are doing right by him and he likes the stock design so far.

Chit happens. Every once in a while something is going to get out the door with an issue. if you're on the receiving end, that sucks. But all in all, given the number of stocks McMillan churns out every year, it seems to me it's rare to hear of issues. I see no reason McMillan needs to reply to this thread, they're handing it and that is between Matt and McMillan. I do hope for Matt's sake they turn it around quickly.

Best of luck Matt. I think in the end you'll be very pleased with the stock.

Rob

FWIW & IMHO,
I would like to thank everyone for their input, however, Chit definitely happens. Well put Rob...

I don't see a need for a response from McMillan. We have discussed the issue in detail and they are offering:

1. The stock fixed(if possible)
2. A new identical stock that is pushed through production as an expedited order. Which will take 8-12 weeks.
3. Or a refund...

I really don't know what else they could offer to do... The "McM" sticker is a final QC approval sticker from their inspector. There is no way anyone could miss such a spot of damage. At this point I really don't know what I am going to do, however, I am certain they will stand behind it.

Regards, Matt.

If you don't need the stock during the next two to three months, getting an identical replacement without the flaw would be the path that I'd recommend.

could you keep the broken stock, use it through hunting season until your "new" stock comes in? Another 8-12 weeks is terrible service.

Sorry everyone, McMillan is screwing the pooch here. Its obvious they don't care. They have enough backorders to be building stocks for years and enough builders placing huge orders every day. It appears they could care less they put out a crappy stock for Matt, he's just a guy, not George Gardner, Allan Rovig, etc.

Kelly should build Matts stock himself TODAY, overnight it and give Matta big apology. That's just my take, I have McMillan stocked guns and have owned a couple more. The quality of the last one was not near as good as the one on my first GAP many years ago... I bet Mr. Manners could help you if you got a refund.

[quote=Buzzsaw). I bet Mr. Manners could help you if you got a refund.[/quote]




I wouldn't bet on that! Manners customer service sucks balls.

I ordered a stock from them and 4 months into the wait they informed me via email the stock wouldn't work with my inlet?
So I emailed them back , no answer. So I called during business hours , no answer! called again during business hours, no answer, so left a detailed message, no call back nothing!!

Called a competitor, ordered a stock, had it in hand in 3 weeks.

Then manners sends me an email after I have my new competitors stock in hand, all indignant about me and my stock order! unbelievable, told them to go to hell

fwiw,
Concur on that...

I am not looking for an apology from anyone.

The barreled action arrived from Borden and I attempted to drop it into the inlet to check fit. With the recoil lug pulled back firmly to the rear, the bolt release, bolt handle, and ejection port relief are off by roughly .200" or so. Unfortunately, some of the dimensions are right while others are off. The safety relief would have to be opened to the rear as it is already resting against the back of the current inlet. This would also pull the barrel inlet out of agreement with the very specific shank cylinder length specs that were given, checked, and rechecked. The screw holes seem to be only .100" or so off to the front. That this came out of a CNC inletting mill is surprising. The stock could be saved, however, with the amount of material that would have to removed, it would need to be built back up in spots and then painted.




Regards, Matt.

That's just too good of a barreled action not to have a perfect fit and finish. Its a shame

But you shouldn't have to rework a new stock when you paid a premium price for it. It isn't as if you bought a used stock that needs a bit of mill or Dremel work to fit properly. I think that the manufacturer owes you an apology for sending you a sub-standard stock that should never have passed their QC inspection, assuming that there actually was a QC inspection.

I have around 80 McMillan stocks in service and have only had three duds, a Sako Classic style that came with the wrong, too short, LOP, and a pair of Remington Seven style that were inletted for 700 SAs, rather than the Seven actions that they had been ordered for.