Push Feed Bolt Actions

Remington shotguns have claw type extractors and they aren't any more solid than the extractors on their rifles. I've seen some Remington claw type extractors that were made from such soft metal they rubbed the edge off after about 50 rounds. Everything can be made well or made badly. Other Remington shot claws are pretty strong. It's only on their economy models that the metal is really soft. I replaced the extractor with a much better one on my 870 Express. Lots of people do.

BTW I don't have problems with the push feed on my Savage. It will sometimes fail to extract shells perfectly but it feeds them and holds them in place just fine. I've had problems with extraction on other rifles too.

Malamute said:

The brass shavings causing a problem with a plunger ejector, I can see that it's possible, but I've never heard of it (not meaning it cant happen, just that I dont think its very common). Plunger ejectors have been used in a number of guns that have never been generally considered failure prone, at least in regards to the ejector.

Click to expand...

I was thinking more about ejection velocity rather than brass shavings. Honestly though, a good extractor is what I look for these days along with a 2 or 3-position safety that blocks the firing pin and locks the bolt closed. I really don't care if it's CRF or PF. Heck, I have three AIs with push feed and I'll put them up against anything on the planet when it comes to reliability under the worst conditions.

A push feed bolt action rifle can jam.

If the rifleman pushes the bolt part way forward and a cartridge starts into the chamber and then pulls the bolt back on a push feed action he can push the next round under the first and jam the rifle.

This is why manually operated battle and dangerous game rifles have been made with control round feeding.

Besides it's good machinery. If you can operate a Bridgeport or a South Bend you will know what I mean. If you don't know what a "Bridgeport" or "South Bend" is then you may not.

A push feed bolt action rifle can jam.

If the rifleman pushes the bolt part way forward and a cartridge starts into the chamber and then pulls the bolt back on a push feed action he can push the next round under the first and jam the rifle.

This is why manually operated battle and dangerous game rifles have been made with control round feeding...

Click to expand...

Um, yes, that's been mentioned several times. That's the operator error part that was mentioned. It's also the reason one should practice like they plan to use them, not running the bolt like its made of glass at the range just to save brass or keep it from getting dirty. I don't believe the Lee Enfield is a CRF like the Mauser type action is, so we shouldn't make blanket statements implying that all bolt action rifles used in battle were CRF. The Lee Enfield is often considered one of the (if not the) best example of a bolt action battle rifle. The CRF or not is never mentoned in that context.

Just saying, if we're going to have this discussion, let's be accurate and honest about it. There's way too much mistaken information about this topic, in print, and on the net.

Malamute said:

I don't believe the Lee Enfield is a CRF like the Mauser type action is, so we shouldn't make blanket statements implying that all bolt action rifles used in battle were CRF. The Lee Enfield is often considered one of the (if not the) best example of a bolt action battle rifle. The CRF or not is never mentoned in that context.

Click to expand...

With Lee-Enfields (No4 Mk2 at least) the case rim slides up under the extractor as a round is pushed forward out of the magazine so they do have a CRF action. The bolt face is flat with no supporting rim which CRF has to have. Regardless, Accuracy International rifles are PF so clearly it's not an issue for the British military.

...Accuracy International rifles are PF so clearly it's not an issue for the British military.

Click to expand...

Yep, and also the M40 used by the U.S. Marine Corp since 1966 and the M24 used by the U.S. Army since 1988, both of which are PF's.

Don

Malamute,

I wrote that battle rifles HAVE been made CRF........

LOL

Some get so worked up over just a mechanical device. Calm down and save up for CRF!

Mosins are push feed and are known for reliability. Gew 88's were also push-feeds, along with Mannlichers and virtually every semi-automatic rifle ever made.

99, I'm not worked up about it (I gave up getting worked up much about online discussions). I have both, and don't see that much difference. I'm more interested in the extractor type than the feed style. My comment about accuracy was a generalization, such as some earlier comments had indicated that non-CRF's had wimpy extractors, which is sometimes the case, sometimes not, but not exactly an either/or case. The bolt battle rifle comment was the other part of that,....

The comment about bolt battle rifles sounded like a blanket statement, but you may not have meant it that way, more of a generalization, to which I agree, as a generalization. Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning.

Yes, the Lee Enfield rounds slip under the extractor,..... or not, I don't believe they always do every time. The action feeds/chambers fine either way, but I dont believe they quite qualify as a true CRF. I've watched them feed, fast and slowly. They dont always function like the Mausers, and it doesnt seem to affect how well they function, which is to say, they work pretty darn well.

Ash said:

Mosins are push feed and are known for reliability. Gew 88's were also push-feeds, along with Mannlichers and virtually every semi-automatic rifle ever made.

Click to expand...

Ash, I have a Mannlicher Schoenauer, and it is definitely CRF. I don't know about military M/S rifles, but my hunting rifle has a claw built into the bolt, and as rounds leave the magazine they slide up under the claw, just like the Mauser action does. The M/S does not share the split lug like the Mauser, but it is definitely CRF.

I'll grant that. The other observations I'll keep.

A push feed bolt action rifle can jam.

If the rifleman pushes the bolt part way forward and a cartridge starts into the chamber and then pulls the bolt back on a push feed action he can push the next round under the first and jam the rifle.

This is why manually operated battle and dangerous game rifles have been made with control round feeding.

Besides it's good machinery. If you can operate a Bridgeport or a South Bend you will know what I mean. If you don't know what a "Bridgeport" or "South Bend" is then you may not.

Click to expand...

You decided to stop participating in the 24 hour campfire thread since people made so much fun of you.

Given the nature of this forum, I will simply point out that this kind of jam is equally possible in a CRF action since the extractor doesn't grab the cartridge until it's moved forward a bit.

Also, I'll point out that, comically, the picture you've posted to illustrate your point is of a CRF action, not a push feed.

Just to add a little fuel to the fire, are not CRF AND so-called Push Feed rifles BOTH push feed??
The claw extractor helps to secure the cartridge to the bolt, but has NOTHING to do with inserting the cartridge into the rifles chamber, Correct??
I own pre-64 Winchester Mod 70's and Mod 70 Featherweights that were manufactured by Winchester before they sold to U.S. Repeating Arms..FWIW, the push feed 70's are a great deal more accurate than my pre-64's..

idcurrie said:

You decided to stop participating in the 24 hour campfire thread since people made so much fun of you.

Given the nature of this forum, I will simply point out that this kind of jam is equally possible in a CRF action since the extractor doesn't grab the cartridge until it's moved forward a bit.

Also, I'll point out that, comically, the picture you've posted to illustrate your point is of a CRF action, not a push feed.

Click to expand...

I don't know how you'd be able to tell if that's a CRF or Push feed in that picture? From what we can see, it could just as easily be one as the other...

That said, I really don't see who would have the kind of jam he's describing. I've seen guys short-stroke the bolt on the way back, and either fail to eject the spent cartridge or fail to go far enough back to pick up the next cartridge in the magazine, but I've never seen anyone short-stroke the bolt on the way forward. I'm not certain what would prompt someone to halfway load a cartridge in the chamber and then pull it back out. If someone is doing that, perhaps clearing a good jam will teach them a lesson about paying attention to what they're doing.

Pistol Ranch said:

Just to add a little fuel to the fire, are not CRF AND so-called Push Feed rifles BOTH push feed??
The claw extractor helps to secure the cartridge to the bolt, but has NOTHING to do with inserting the cartridge into the rifles chamber, Correct??

Click to expand...

A controlled round feed uses both the bolt face and the magazine rails to guide the cartridge into the chamber. The extractor and bolt face cutout guide the rear of the cartridge to the center of the bolt, while the magazine feed rails guide the sides of the cartridge and bullet into the chamber. The physical pushing comes from the forward motion of the both. With a non-CRF, the magazine rails are the only thing centering the cartridge into the action. If the cartridge is in spec, the rifle and ammunition are clean, and the magazine feed rails are shaped properly, you'll never have a problem. However, if the action or ammunition gets dirty, or the magazine rails are dirty or damaged, you can have issues, particularly with the cartridge skewing sideways in the chamber. This can cause the cartridge to gouge into the action, or even worse, get stuck completely.

Likewise, if the cartridge or action is dirty, or you are using poor quality ammunition, the case may require a good deal of force to extract from the chamber. MOST CRF actions have better extractors, although there are exceptions to the rule.

As long as the rifle and ammo are clean and in spec, you don't need controlled round feed. A push round feed rifle will feed perfectly fine upside down. If you don't believe that, go into the gunsafe and try one. However, when things get dirty, nasty, and out of spec, the CRF can be a big benefit. That's why so many battle rifles used it.

Yet so many battle rifles didn't use it, and no automatic uses it.

Mausers, Springfields, Pattern 14 and Model 1917 Enfields, Mannlichers, Carcanos, and Arisakas were all controlled round feed. The only 3 major push feeds from that era that I can think of are the Mosin Nagant, the Lee Enfield, and the Schmidt Rubin. Interestingly, the Mosin and Enfield both use a rimmed cartridge with a lot of body taper. The Mosin also uses a magazine that is straight up and down, centering the cartridge in the magazine, as opposed to the very staggered magazines used by CRF rifles of the day. The main purpose of the CRF, centering the cartridge relative to the chamber, is no longer necessary with this magazine designs. You also take up much more vertical space for the magazine. The Enfield and Schmidt Rubin both used detachable box magazines that had larger lips on top to retain the cartridges. These lips also helped center cartridges in the action. The body taper and rim eases feeding a lot (the rim also helps center the cartridge body in the magazine). The rim also gives the cartridge a really good surface for the ejector to grab onto, and the increased body taper makes it easier to extract, even in a dirty rifle.

The Swiss were notorious for keeping their rifles spotlessly clean, and they also used very high quality ammo. Perhaps that's why they felt CRF wasn't the most important thing in the world.

Autoloaders were mostly developed when crappy ammo from the turn of the century was no longer such an issue. The very nature of an autoloader eliminates improper bolt manipulation as a concern also, making push round feed more acceptable. Also remember that most Magazine fed semi-autos also have lips on the top of the magazine that push the top cartridge much closer to the center of the action than the internal magazine of a bolt action rifle. Just like the narrower Mosin and Enfield Magazine, this eliminates one of the major needs for CRF in a battle rifle.

Finally, I've seen a whole bunch of push-feed autoloaders stove pipe or fail to feed in other ways. I've never seen a Mauser 98 do that, no matter how feverishly the bolt is worked. I wonder if there might be something to that...

So, CRF is not so much a necessity if you design a proper magazine?

I'd say that's a mostly valid assumption. Of course, in the case of a Mosin you get a big magazine sticking out the bottom where there's nothing in the Mauser. Notice that the earlier Mauser 88 used a single stack magazine like the Mosin, and it also used push round feed. Only the later staggered magazine rifles got the controlled round design. I know it's a weak argument, but if the CRF wasn't better in that application, Mauser wouldn't have used it, especially considering the amount of engineering and machining that goes into making it work properly. Also, if you're talking Mauser based hunting rifles like this thread started, you're kind of stuck with that internal double stack magazine.

I think it has an equal amount to do with magazine design and the use of a long-taper rimmed cartridge. The rimmed tapered cartridge eliminates 99.9% of the ejection problems. The use of a detachable magazine allows long, thin feed lips to be employed, centering the cartridges up on the bolt, and helping to eliminate the feeding problems. On a receiver integral magazine, the feed lips are so thick that centering the cartridge in the chamber is not possible, both due to the follower travel and the travel of the cartridges upwards in the magazine. On a detachable magazine rifle with very thin feed lips, if you screw up the lip, you get a new magazine. On a fixed mag rifle, you'd be up a creek without a paddle unless you could get it bent back just right.

Finally, for your viewing entertainment:

Lee Enfield Failure to feed, 0:39 (appears to almost certainly be a stovepipe on the feeding stroke, not the extraction stroke). That is one thing in particular that doesn't happen with CRF. Then again, I've never seen a CRF shot this fast. I have, however, worked the bolt on many a Mauser with the same vigor, and never had a FTF or stovepipe)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiajgOeKOKU

Of course, the big magazine also slopes in such a way as to prevent the trigger guard from catching on anything.

cal30_sniper said:

A controlled round feed uses both the bolt face and the magazine rails to guide the cartridge into the chamber. The extractor and bolt face cutout guide the rear of the cartridge to the center of the bolt, while the magazine feed rails guide the sides of the cartridge and bullet into the chamber.

Click to expand...

What do you mean when you say bolt face cutout when describing CRF bolts?

cal30_sniper said:

Finally, for your viewing entertainment:

Click to expand...

That video is lame for so many reasons.

1858 said:

What do you mean when you say bolt face cutout when describing CRF bolts?

Click to expand...

If you look at the face of a CRF bolt, it looks like an inverted U. The cartridge is guided from either side of the magazine by the cutout in the bolt face. If it comes from the left side of the magazine (as viewed from the front), it is guided in by the extractor. If it comes from the right side, it is guided in by the ridge in the bolt. You can see in the image above that both sides are beveled as to smoothly guide the cartridge from either side to the center of the chamber.

Now, if you look at a push round feed action, the bolt face is either completely flat (like the Lee-Enfield), or is surrounded by a raised ring (like a Rem 700). This design relies on the magazine feed rails alone to guide the cartridge towards the center of the chamber.

1858 said:

That video is lame for so many reasons.

Click to expand...

Because it shows one of the main weakness of a stiffly worked bolt in a push-feed action? Whether it's a push-feed bolt or a semi-auto, both are susceptible to stovepipes, particularly if there is an issue with the magazine. When was the last time you saw a stovepipe in a CRF Mauser or Win 70?

cal30_sniper said:

If you look at the face of a CRF bolt, it looks like an inverted U. The cartridge is guided from either side of the magazine by the cutout in the bolt face. If it comes from the left side of the magazine (as viewed from the front), it is guided in by the extractor. If it comes from the right side, it is guided in by the ridge in the bolt. You can see in the image above that both sides are beveled as to smoothly guide the cartridge from either side to the center of the chamber.

Click to expand...

How about the bolt face of my Lee-Enfield No4 Mk2 shown above? The rim of the cartridge slides up under the extractor as the round is pushed forward out of the magazine. Note that the round can be extracted long before the bolt is closed, something that can't be said of traditional PF actions.

cal30_sniper said:

Because it shows one of the main weakness of a stiffly worked bolt in a push-feed action?

Click to expand...

No, because there is no accompanying data to support any meaningful claim. It simply shows an individual attempting to operate a bolt and trigger as fast as is humanly possible for no good reason. Nothing is idiot proof.

It simply shows an individual attempting to operate a bolt and trigger as fast as is humanly possible for no good reason.

Click to expand...

Lots of Lee Enfields have been shot as fast as possible for VERY good reasons (most people consider staying alive a "very good reason" to shoot fast). Maybe he was trying to beat Sgt. Snoxall's record. Think you can beat 38 hits on a 12" target at 300 yards in one minute?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute

Mad minute was a pre-World War I term used by British riflemen during training to describe scoring 15 hits onto a 12" round target at 300 yd (274.3 m) within one minute using a bolt-action rifle (usually a Lee-Enfield or Lee-Metford rifle). It was not uncommon during the First World War for riflemen to greatly exceed this score. Many riflemen could average 30+ shots, while the record, set in 1914 by Sergeant Instructor Alfred Snoxall was 38 hits.

Click to expand...

45_auto said:

Lots of Lee Enfields have been shot as fast as possible for VERY good reasons (most people consider staying alive a "very good reason" to shoot fast). Maybe he was trying to beat Sgt. Snoxall's record.

Click to expand...

I am well aware of the "mad minute" but clearly the shooter in the video wasn't doing that since the "mad minute" requires AIMED shots. He shoots the first 10 rounds in 10 seconds which is just moronic. You don't need to work the bolt that fast to shoot 15 aimed shots in a minute. If you do, you will most likely have problems. The expression "slow is smooth, smooth is fast comes to mind".

Watch this video ... the shooter in the camo jacket ... he knows how to run a Lee-Enfield bolt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lYxJwwmcwU

I grew up shooting Lee-Enfields on the range at Otmoor in Oxfordshire under the direction of Captain Strongman who was a phenomenally accomplished Lee-Enfield shooter. He fought in WWII and knew how to run a bolt and he was a lefty. He worked the bolt with his left hand by reaching over the receiver and would put anyone to shame including regulars. He was one of those any day, any time, any place kind of guys.

1858 said:

How about the bolt face of my Lee-Enfield No4 Mk2 shown above? The rim of the cartridge slides up under the extractor as the round is pushed forward out of the magazine. Note that the round can be extracted long before the bolt is closed, something that can't be said of traditional PF actions.




No, because there is no accompanying data to support any meaningful claim. It simply shows an individual attempting to operate a bolt and trigger as fast as is humanly possible for no good reason. Nothing is idiot proof.

Click to expand...

As has already been discussed at length in this thread, the Enfield is an odd breed of cat. Not only does it use a highly tapered rimmed cartridge, it also has a detachable magazine. Comparing the half-breed extractor "push-feed" action of the enfield to a modern push feed hunting rifle like a Savage, Remington, or mid-year Model 70 is a very big stretch.

I too have an Enfield. Yes, the extractor does usually slip over the rim of the cartridge, but not always. It also does not encompass the rim like a CRF action. It may clip it, but it does not cradle it and guide it like the large extractor and shaped bolt face of a true CRF rifle.

The video is very relevant. It shows what can happen with a push-feed action when rapidly and forcefully manipulating the bolt. Regardless of whether or not the shooter has a clue what he's hitting, this is a clear example of a cartridge simply getting out of control in a push feed action. I've yet to ever see that happen with a Mauser. Yes, nothing is fool proof. Some things ARE more fool proof than others. CRF happens to be one of them.

If shooting rapidly isn't considered important, then why do we have semi-auto and automatic weapons arming the vast majority of the world's militaries for the last 50 years? Sometimes, laying down suppressive fire is a very useful skill. Fire superiority.