trev
Because of your posting, we are looking into redesigning the action into something more sevelt.
We are going to go more toward the lines of a Ruger no.1, with an exposed hammer. 
The tang will be extended for a tang sight, and the block resessed to align perfectly with the top of the action. The curves in the action will be eliminated, giving a smoother line into the stock from the barrel.
This will be our 2nd model, on custom order only.
Thank you for your honest input.
Gunsmith

Ken shot the eye out of a albino bug at 100  yrds  and i got the other eye with a bbgun Ken did his with a 270win early Wickliffe rifle i have lusted over the rifle and he hides it when we visit ------oh the bug was on a cotton ball. regards to all ben

Mr Gunsmith,

My point about the 'wallet group' was that, sooner or later if shot enough, most any rifle can shoot one tight group. I don't doubt for one second that one of your rifles shot the pictured group, that's not the issue here. One group, no matter how small, means very little except that the rifle will fire five times.

The issue is your claim that your action is one of the most accurate, and in my mind that statement is extremely questionable without fairly extensive records of record-setting performance. IMO unless the action can produce, on demand, and keep on producing, again on demand, VERY superior and match-winning accuracy, then.......well, then, if it hasn't already done that then IMO it's just another action until it piles up some actual match wins.

I greatly admired Elmer and have some of his books signed to me on the flyleaves, from back when he was still kicking and able to correspond. I believe almost all the stuff he ever wrote, especially about  handguns, but I don't recall him winning any rifle accuracy matches since about 1937 or so. Ken Hurst is a personal friend and he wouldn't lie (at least not about something serious, VBG!), but again I don't recall that Ken shoots in any accuracy matches.

So what we seem to have here is several personal opinions, no more.

Your proposed appearance changes should make the action much more appealing, especially with the new tang and smoother lines. For some more inspiration in the aesthetics area, I suggest a look into Steve Hughes' fine book Custom Rifles in Black and White. Steve's work is quite superior but IMO Ed Webber's is even better, please look closely at his Hagn and '77 Sharps sporters. My own copy is extensively annotated with my comments on the good and bad points of each rifle shown, and the notes have proven to be very useful when working up any new rifle.

BTW I don't like the Dakota 10 either, I agree with almost all of Trev's comments concerning shape and beauty. Unfortunately my mental imagery far exceeds my ability to duplicate it in actual wood and steel but I'm still trying...
Regards, Joe

I'd suggest that working out the bugs, and sorting out the target market, should be the two things you get done first. 

If you are going to brag accuracy, you are playing to a really tough crowd. Guys that measure the also-ran's scores with the same micrometer that the winners circle scores were measured with.

Bragging "most" accurate is a toughie. Accurate enough, is a pretty good goal, once you determine who you wish to be selling these rifles to. For some shooting sports, 1/4 moa is nearly required, for others, 1 moa is going to be accurate enough that the triggerman determines the win, rather than the hardware. 
You could do worse things than consider the dilemma Colt's Firearms found themselves in, when they put the Sharp's to the wrong market, at the time they did. IIRC the quote was something along the lines of "the shooters that wanted that style rifle, did not like the calibers offered, and the shooters that wanted the calibers offered, did not want that style of rifle". 

I would suggest that chasing your tail trying to please all people, is a poor way to get in shape. The business plan that seems to have worked for the CPA bunch, seems to hinge on making what the customer would like, to order, rather than hoping that if you make it, they will come. They might, or not.

Given that your market volume is already incredibly small, you could likely make a living for some time, selling guns solely to those that desire to own "one of each" for their collections. I would expect that there would be a segment of the bunch that shoot either Scheutzen or BPCRS that would be interested in one of those arms, , although the end result would look very different, if two consecutive pieces were to travel in those directions. That said, I am interested in seeing what a more "classic" iteration of the action would look like, if you are sticking to the same basic design.
Whole new action design?

  Cheers
  Trev

Gunsmith, you talk a good talk.  I hope you're able to produce a good rifle for the market.  But, you're website and talk have a huge smell of hype and salesmanship.  I'd be a lot more comfortable believing them, if there were some specific examples and significant number of examples to back them up.  One rifle that shoots a group does not make the "most accurate rifle" out of an action.

How many rifles did you report on your ATF Form 4483-A last year?  Or, if you want to increase the number, in the last 5 years?

dave