Control Feed Vs. Push Feed

[dak0ta]

Hi,

I was wondering why not all bolt actions are control feed based off the Mauser-style?

Ruger M77 Hawkeye has it.

But Remington and Savage use push feed.

Is there any inherent real advantage?

 

[jmr40]

Push feed is cheaper to manufacture and has proven to be acceptable in 99.99% of the cases. I realize it may not be needed but do like the idea of CRF. Most of my rifles are PF, but if I had to survive in the wilderness for an extended time and wanted to make sure my rifle would work when dirty, wet or with sub standard ammo I would take a CRF rifle.

 

[browningguy]

Really only one advantage, if you short stroke a push feed it may not remove the case, then when you try to feed another cartridge you have a jam. And that is a big advantage if you're staring down an elephant or cape buff at 25 yards.

Feeding cases in any position is often touted as the major advantage of controlled feed, but in my experience modern push feeds do as well.

Both of my customs are on Mauser actions, a .275 Rigby and a .458 Winnie, so I do like the Mauser. But I also hunt with a Savage and older Ruger push feed.

 

[jmr40]

browningguy is right, I can get any of my PF rifles to feed just as well from any angle. Including upside down. Actually feeding the rounds into the chamber is the easy part. Getting them out properly is much harder and where the CRF has an advantage that is rarely discussed.

The extractor on PF rifles is a tiny piece of metal that only grabs about 1/8" or so of the rim on one side of the cartridge. On a CRF rifle the rim of the cartridge is grabbed on 2 sides and nearly half of the rim is held onto by the extractor. With a dirty rifle, ammo that may have been dropped in mud or ammo that is a bit on the hot side a CRF rifle will pull it out of the chamber when nothing else will. This is why this design was developed for the military, to work in battlefield conditions.

The ejector on a PF uses a small spring loaded plunger to eject the rounds after firing. These are more likely to fail because of a broken spring or small piece of dirt that keeps it from working. There are no moving parts on a CRF ejector. Just a blade of steel that hits the cartridge to eject it from the rifle. Empty cases from my PF rifles fall onto the ground at my feet. Empty cases from my CRF rifles land 10' or more to my right when working the action.

As said in my earlier post PF works fine 99.99% of the time. But for rugged conditions CRF gives me just a bit more confidence my rifle will work when needed. Even if I give up a bit of accuracy.

 

[skinewmexico]

I wonder how long until the first "if it doesn't have CRF it isn't worth owning" post.

 

[eliphalet]

if it doesn't have CRF it isn't worth owning.

Edit: 'bout 13 minutes LOL
I own both, I like my 700 bestus

 

[.38 Special]

I'm not even sure that CRF is a real advantage for extraction. Certainly an improperly tuned CRF can fail to extract -- and I've snapped off an old Mauser extractor, leaving the rifle useless until a cleaning rod could be had. And most push feed extractors grip the case more tightly when the case is harder to extract, right up to the point that it pulls through the rim.

IMO, push feed vs. CRF is angels dancing on pin heads. Properly tuned they both work perfectly. Improperly tuned, they can both fail catastrophically.

 

[Snapping Twig]

Most of mine are PF, but I have one CRF and I prefer it.

I've done that buck fever jam thing with the PF, so the CRF eliminates this and I can control the brass flinging better when I'm at the range. Pulling the bolt back slowly at the end of the stroke allows you to drop the brass in your hand if you like. Spring loaded ejection is one speed only - fast.

Both work.

 

[TimT]

any real adavantage? dangerous game yes-all of mine here in the upper interior of AK. is CRF. But advantage I believe with the push feed is the concentricity of bullet to bore. You see more push feeds shooting more precisely in shooting matches etc.

I have owned quite a number of push feeds and have kept just one, a L61R Finnbear-they shoot like there is no tomorrow! The Rems I have sold and the largest caliber was my .375RUM printed cloverleafs or better at 100yds-of course bedding, trigger and good recoil pads assisted.

I buy Mausers for just the "controlled-fed" ability and the strong "claw" extractor plus a few pre-64"s. Own a few Rem. 30's as well but more for there design strength along with the above mentioned pluses.

The Sako extractors are tough, the Rems I have owned never failed but sure are "puny", makes me think just how in the world is this foolproof?

My CRF's are accurate and some sub-moa's- abit of tweaking in reloading and some patience helps.

 

[TAB]

Also remember that on CRF you can not insert a round in the chamber then close the bolt... it must be feed thru the mag. Not really a big deal, but its funny watching guys do it at the range.

 

[USSR]

Also remember that on CRF you can not insert a round in the chamber then close the bolt... it must be feed thru the mag. Not really a big deal, but its funny watching guys do it at the range.

Not a problem. Any gunsmith worth his salt can bevel the extractor so that feeding from the mag is not necessary.

Don

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

For serious business, CRF is the way to go.


For anything else, push feed is fine. Push feed is more accurate too. Typically.


Calling a short stroke a weakness of CRF is like saying limpwristing is a weakness of autoloading pistols. If you slow feed a push feed while being sideways, it might pop out and you jam or lose the round. Everything is junk if your technique is junk. Same thing with marksmanship.

I laugh my butt off when I see these tactical ninjas with $5,000 AR's, lights and lasers and all sorts of crapola on their rifle at the range. They're shooting off a BENCH at 50 yards on a B-27 target and cannot keep them all in the 7 ring. Same goes for the pistol range. People entirely missing an IDPA target at 7 yards. That being said, a lot of people, I mean a lot ...should be more concerned about technique rather than action type, which super bullet to use, which ninja optic to get etc....


Shooting is no different that Golf. People think they can buy skill.

 

[Slamfire]

Push feed is cheaper to manufacture and has proven to be acceptable in 99.99% of the cases. I realize it may not be needed but do like the idea of CRF.

Agreed.

Control round feed was an invention of Paul Mauser. Paul Mauser used or invented virtually every other type of extractor ever put on a bolt rifle. He invented Controlled round feed to solve a specific problem: Double feeding.

The M88 Commission rifle was push feed, and believe it or not, Soldiers created out of battery ignition when they left an unfired round in the chamber, then fed another from the magazine. The bullet tip of the round from the magazine would hit the primer of the round in the chamber, and BANG!

Control round feed Mauser military rifles were set up so that it was difficult not to feed rounds from the chamber, or accidently leave a round in the chamber.

Mauser designs were about the best that have ever been designed. Springfield used the M1896 Mauser as a basis for design of the M1903. The M1903 used the Mauser extractor. The American public was familiar with the 03’, and when Winchester product improved their M54 to the M70, they kept the Mauser extractor.

Mauser actions, and their directives used the claw extractor. However many successful military bolt designs used a variation of the pre M1896 Mauser push feed extractors. For semi automatic mechanisms, the push feed extractor is the dominant extractor.

Differences in reliability between a CRF and a Push feed are marginal. Feed and extraction have to be carefully engineered, round orientation, magazine feed lip contours, timing, release points, are all more important than what extractor is used.

The Mauser extractor is expensive to make, so fewer and fewer commercial products used it. Winchester eventually dropped it in 1964. Since shill gunwriters had been extolling the virtues of Winchester CRF for decades, the loss of it created an empty void in many. The Grail was gone. It was a marketing disaster for Winchester, and the shills had to really work hard to convince Americans that push feed was now a good thing. Just read Ken Warner's review of the post 64 Winchester in the 1964 Gun Digest. Shilling at its best.

However Winchester brought the controlled round feed back in the late 80’s. Since I like being able to open the bolt and roll the round out into my hand, I like CRF.

That's the biggest difference to me.

 

[SSN Vet]

Shooting is no different that Golf. People think they can buy skill.

Actually, this principle is comforting to me as I sure can't afford to buy it.

 

[skinewmexico]

Also remember that on CRF you can not insert a round in the chamber then close the bolt... it must be feed thru the mag. Not really a big deal, but its funny watching guys do it at the range.

Not unlike a 1911.

 

[jmr40]

With some CRF rifles you can insert a round directly into the chamber without feeding from the magazine. The extractors on Rugers and the classic Winchesters are designed to snap over the rim if loaded this way. I'm not sure about others but I understand it is a fairly simple modification for a gunsmith to alter the models which will not load directly to the chamber.

 

[dak0ta]

So I need your help guys.

CRF Ruger M77 Hawkeye in .308 or PF Savage Model 14 American Classic in .308?

Criteria,

Fit/Finish, Action, Accuracy, Price, Safety, Recoil Pad, Trigger, Magazine

 

[TimT]

Hawkeye .308.........of course.

edit: after all these yrs. of shooting a few Rugers "CRF" I had to try the "snap-over" the round feeding you mentioned-be sonofagun! It does.

 

[Art Eatman]

The primary benefit of the push feed is that it will allow the cartridge case to tolerate higher chamber pressures. The case head is more fully enclosed.

 

[.38 Special]

I'd take the Ruger too, even though I consider CRF to be completely irrelevant, esp. in a .308.

 

[JNewell]

Push feed is more accurate too. Typically.

As much as I like the idea of CRF, this has been my experience also, across quite a good number of bolt action rifles.

Not unlike a 1911.

Oh, people do it, both with CRF bolts and with 1911s and similarly designed pistols.

Then they wonder why they break extractors after a few thousand, or even hundred, rounds...so where's that vaunted reliability??? Down the tube labeled "operator error."

 

[Slamfire]

The primary benefit of the push feed is that it will allow the cartridge case to tolerate higher chamber pressures. The case head is more fully enclosed.

Take a look at Stuart Otteson's book "The Bolt Action" Vol I. On page 5, in the analysis of the CRF M98 action, he shows that Paul Mauser's action provides more case head support than, a M70, or even a M700.

There is more to action design than case head support, and the M700 has design features that provide excellent protection to the shooter, but most push feed mechanisms do not provide as much case head support as a CRF M98.

In my opinion, push feed allows for a compact extractor, allows locking arrangements and breech design options that a CRF would not, and is cheap.

 

[Reid73]

I like a Mauser claw-type extractor but don't consider it the sina qua non of a good rifle, even for dangerous game. While a cheapo push feed is not a good idea for the latter, one never hears of problems with Weatherby Mark Vs or Sakos; I personally would be comfortable using either of those brands on any game animal in any conditions.

Speaking of Sako: I have experimented with my 85 Bavarian using A-Zoom snap caps, and it is certainly possible to get the rifle to double feed if I really work at it. On the other hand, the same thing about my Mauser-actioned 1200 Super Clip. For practical purposes both actions are very reliable. One good feature about the 85 action is its use of a fixed ejector; in a sense, the 85 is a sort of hydrid.

Not a problem. Any gunsmith worth his salt can bevel the extractor so that feeding from the mag is not necessary.

This can certainly be done. However, direct feeding will stress the claw-type extractor even if bevelled, so it's not a good habit to fall into. Of course, in an emergency no reasonable person cares about that ... I'm just saying it's not a good idea at the range etc.

I laugh my butt off when I see these tactical ninjas with $5,000 AR's, lights and lasers and all sorts of crapola on their rifle at the range. They're shooting off a BENCH at 50 yards on a B-27 target and cannot keep them all in the 7 ring.

Yes, I've observed the same thing, and it is always amusing to be able to outshoot people who have very fancy equipment. In shooting - as in life - the KISS principle usually tends to work best.