Controlled feed vs. push feed

[Maverick223]

Well in fact, the M1 was found to be the equal of the "controlled round feed" Rifle Caliber 30 M-1903, in terms of reliability among other criteria.

I don't believe it, the M1 is a good rifle but it is more complex, has more parts (in general and those that move) to break/damage, and is less tolerant of ammunition. Added together, it is less reliable than any well-constructed bolt action rifle.

I know some people are quite retentive about this issue, and it makes some very sore, but really the notion that you must have controlled round feed over push feed, or somehow you will "double clutch" and be eaten by a wild animal is simply overstated and bordering on preposterous. Very few of us will face a charging grizz or tiger, so lets take that out of the equation shall we.

I think you are the one that is getting defensive, because someone challenged the superiority of your favorite rifle. Besides, why should we exclude the aspect of dangerous game, it is positively relevant to the discussion...some folks might even find it insightful.

Another advantage of the Rem 700 bolt is that it supports the case head with that "ring of steel" 3 of them as a mater of fact.

Well I have to give it to you that Remington does have a better marketing dept.

 

[ArmedBear]

Remington does have a better marketing dept.

The worse the product, the better the ad copy...

If your gun club keeps piles of old catalogs around, look through some of them. The products that were discontinued in disgrace tend to have been those described as the best things since sliced bread. It's pretty funny, unless you bought one of them...

 

[Hangingrock]

Controlled feed, push feed the average deer hunter could care less. Remington 700 series rifles dominate the market place and have since the nineteen sixties. Controlled feed is simply not a must have for the average buyer. If it were then the Remington 700 series would not have the market share that it has.

I’ve had both types of rifles. My first center fire (Left Hand) rifle was a conversion of a M721 (RH to LH) which was done in 1962. My father and two uncles were machinists by trade. They basically copied the conversion process done by Guise. Remington in 1973 (?) started offering the M700 in LH that series rifle is basically what I’ve used since then. When Winchester came out with the M70 classic series in left hand I purchased two. (One in 30-06 and one in 375-H&H)

I’m not a proponent of either system. I’ve used the push feed (.223Rem, 308Win, 30-06, 338Win & 416Rem) more than the controlled feed (30-06, & 375H&H) and feel at ease with either one.

 

[Zak Smith]

The AR-15 is "push feed" and it works just fine upside down, on its side, etc. Also, all the purpose-designed bolt-action sniper rifles from the last 30 years are PF, AI, Sako, etc. Just a few points to think about.

 

[Dr.Rob]

I have several of each...

Have to say not all 'pushers' are created equal. The side to side play in many PB rifles I've handled makes a CRF seem buttery smooth.. until you lose count of your shots and try to rack a bullet that isn't there and hang up on the magazine floorplate.

The fastest, smoothest action I have handled is my BRNO 98k, but I hunt primarily with a Savage 116 PF. I have jammed a similar Savage PF110B by somehow double feeding it. . I also have a Savage 116 in .375 H&H with CRF.

Play around with a few.

If you aren't hunting rhinos and charging bears, it probably doesn't matter. If you are firing 3 shots at 100 yards to sight in for hunting season, it probably doesn't matter.

 

[jmr40]

Agree with Zak. Every push feed I've ever owned feed upside down and from any other angle just fine. This part of the discussion is way over rated.

I own and use both types, but do have a preference for the CRF. It has nothing to do with feeding the round into the chamber, but getting it out reliably. As long as your ammo is in spec and your rifle is reasonably clean it shouldn't matter. I just feel that the large extractor and blade ejector of the CRF is more fool proof if your rifle is dirty or if you have less than perfect ammo. You should be able to control the ammo, but sometimes things happen in the field we cannot control that could mean a dirty chamber.

I've honestly never had an issue with either type while hunting.

 

[ArmedBear]

Uh, an AR is an enclosed action with a buffer spring that slams it shut. It picks up the round from a magazine with big bent-over lips.

Like the Garand, but even more so, it has no relevance whatever to different kinds of manually-operated bolt guns fed from internal magazines. Semiauto shotguns are routinely swung in the air, vertically and beyond, while they're cycling, and the feed system is "push-feed" -- but the whole design, like an AR, is quite different from a standard bolt-action.

My push-feed .30-06 drops the round right out of the action if it's held up at certain angles and cycled slowly. This isn't a huge issue by itself, but it also will not extract a round that hasn't been fully fed and locked in -- something that is not an issue with a semiauto because the thing slams shut as soon as it's opened. A bolt gun doesn't slam shut, and there are reasons you might want to pull out a round before you have fully chambered it, or to know that the rifle will do that if you are distracted.

Sniper rifles are wonderful firearms. They're not fighting rifles, dangerous game rifles, or walking-around hunting rifles, though. Different applications favor different operating systems.

 

[rdb]

The AR is not the best ever icon of rifles some people think it is and is not relevant to this conversation.

I have a Model 70 with CRF and I like it. I would like it as well if it was a push feed rifle. I don't think the difference is anything to base your purchase on. How the rifle feels to you and how well you shoot it are infinitely more important to the average hunter. Unless you are going to make a career out of hunting dangerous game.

 

[Maverick223]

Different applications favor different operating systems.

Exactly, there is no "best" type of action, but there are occasions where there is better choice for the work at hand.

 

[Zak Smith]

ArmedBear,

It sure does have relevance. If you shoot an AR-15 upside down, the cartridge does not fall into the gas tube area- it feeds just fine, so the argument that having an enclosed action makes any difference is moot. The AR-15 magazines are double-stack double-feed, which the same fundamental structure as most conventional top-loading bolt-action sporter rifles.

It's somehow twisted to use logic that a push feed won't operate reliably at high speed or under stress, but the way to get them to fail is to operate them very slowly while upside down! The AR-15 works in any orientation because the action consistently provides force on the bolt carrier group to feed the round, as opposed to having a human do it inconsistently! Perhaps it is simply a training issue.

rdb - I'm not making any claims about the AR whatsoever in this thread other than if classified based on the PF/CRF criteria used for bolt guns (like let's say you operated it manually), it would fall into the PF camp and it does not have problems with operation in any orientation.

Sniper rifles are wonderful firearms. They're not fighting rifles,

You might want to check your definitions on that one.

-z

 

[RyanM]

If we're going to bring semi-autos into it, it's worth noting that the vast majority of recoil-operated handguns are controlled feed and either single stack or pseudo-single stack, to maximize reliability when "real estate" inside the gun is at a premium.

Although I do like to point out that the AR-15 and AK-47 are both straight-pull push feeds, when people pooh-pooh the various straight-pull bolt-actions and their "low camming force." Like putting the butt against something and kicking the handle is any different from using a rubber mallet or wood table leg to hammer the bolt handle sideways?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I have a pre-64 Model 70 and three Springfields (two M1903A3s and a customized M1903 in .35 Brown-Whelen.) All of them single load beautifully.

When you look at the 03, you see it was designed to single load. The '03 has a magazine cut-off which allows the magazine to be held in reserve when shooting at long range, while each round is single-loaded.

 

[ArmedBear]

The AR-15 magazines are double-stack double-feed, which the same fundamental structure as most conventional top-loading bolt-action sporter rifles.

Not in the least.

Big feed lips hold the round in the magazine until the bullet is well inside the chamber, guiding the round:

The shape of the magazine is an important part of the feeding system. Note that magazine-related failures in military tests are a significant number of the failures recorded.

It's somehow twisted to use logic that a push feed won't operate reliably at high speed or under stress, but the way to get them to fail is to operate them very slowly while upside down!

Not at all. It just indicates that you don't understand the point.

Operating reliably at high speed or under stress has to do with double-feeding. Cartridges falling out have to do with the position of the rifle when it's being cycled. These are completely different issues, though CRF happens to address both.

CRF isn't the only way to address sensitivity to position, per the AR's magazine design. But it happens to address both issues.

Perhaps it is simply a training issue.

CRF hunting rifles aren't toys, and their selling points aren't really apropos to shooting at inanimate objects in controlled scenarios. My match pistol doesn't fit in a holster, either. It's a very accurate, expensive toy that may bring home hardware, but it's not a defensive pistol. I would never mistake it for one.

So go ahead and try to condescend if you want. It just makes you sound like you really don't know of which you speak.

WRT sniper rifles vs. fighting rifles, whatever definition you want to use, a sniper's bolt gun is not intended for the same uses as a general-issue infantry rifle, and you wouldn't want to use it that way.

 

[Al Thompson]

A semi-auto rifle does not need CRF, it's the manually operated rifles that CRF helps as the power to work the action comes from the shooter. Frankly, if you aggressively work a bolt (the proper method IMHO), the difference becomes less. The big thing CRF does is control the cartridge from loading to ejection. If you double stroke or short stroke a PF rifle, you can jam the critter up. On a CRF, not so much..

As far as a sniper rifle, it is thought by the benchrest crowd that the PF actions are easier to make accurate. I think this mind set is a carry over to the designers of sniper rifles.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Controlled feed means the extractor grabs the round at the beginning of the bolt stroke and holds it all the way into the chamber. With a push feed, the cartridge just sits on top of the magazine and the bottom of the bolt pushes it into the chamber. When general issue military rifles were bolt actions, controlled feed was necessary as such a rifle needed to be fired from any position and the action full of debris. It is also less likely to jam if the operator fails to operate the bolt with full travel and force, something that is very easy to do under great stress, as one would be in military combat. There is less need for it for a sporting/hunting rifle, but it is still nice to have if an elephant is charging you.

 

[Uncle Mike]

there is no "best" type of action

Is too....

You know the kind that breaks open when you push the little thingy!

Like an H&R/NEF Handi-Rifle....now THAT'S the best type of action! hehehehehe

Are you guys serious?

Both the CRF and the PF have their place, I don't know one is any 'worse' than the other. Some of the old timers say the PF is more accurate....guess I'll tag along with that opinion.

I said I wasn't going to get into this one....now look! lol hehehehe

 

[Maverick223]

You know the kind that breaks open when you push the little thingy!

I think you are getting confused with breaking open and the breach block sliding down when you pull the thingy.

I said I wasn't going to get into this one...

Good luck with that one...heck I ride the fence (have both, like both, find both useful) and managed to get dragged in and stomped on. I tried to keep it objective, but some folks be speadin' untruths.

 

[Uncle Mike]

Oh the horror....the horror!

 

[P.B.Walsh]

You know the kind that breaks open when you push the little thingy!

Like an H&R/NEF Handi-Rifle....now THAT'S the best type of action! hehehehehe

Hey, those things are FUN (shooting a .410 one-handed at a water bottle floating in the creek)!!

 

[Zak Smith]

ArmedBear,

I used the AR-15 action as a design that, although semi-auto, is a push feed. It has a magazine that looks different from conventional internal box magazines, to be sure; however, the type of magazine is an orthogonal issue to whether or not an action is PF or CRF. There are many true push feed bolt guns that use magazines that are more similar to AR magazines than the internal magazine in a Remington 700, Winchester, or Mauser; yet, that doesn't make the Remington (or contemporary Winchester) a CRF.

Also, if you look at the overall width of the opening in the top of a Mauser (say a M48 as a fairly generic example), the magazine opening is roughly the same proportion wider than one cartridge as the opening to cartridge width in an AR-15 magazine. The reason they look different is that the AR feed lips end behind the shoulder while the Mauser "feed lips" extend in a tapered fashion all the way forward.

I brought up the example of the AR-15 as a "push feed" because it does work in any orientation. If one argument for necessity of the CRF is that only CRF works in any orientation, I provided a counter-example. In fact, I just tested my AI-AW - a push feed design - to determine if it would work upside down. Here is a terrible quality video that demonstrates it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CArDJs6e9xc

It might be the case that some PF actions do not work upside down, but it is evidently not a defining characteristic of the action type due to the counter-examples I just provided.

So go ahead and try to condescend if you want.

I wasn't condescending at you. Double-feeding is a commonly-cited problem and I suggest that it is a training issue. Go to a 3-Gun match and you can witness people short or double-stroking pump action shotguns that they haven't trained with. Same deal-- training issue.

Furthermore, I believe that the common belief that only a CRF can work in any orientation is incorrect. There are PF designs that work just as well from any orientation. I do agree that a PF rifle makes it problematic to extract a round before the extractor snaps over the rim.

I guess you've backed down from what you original wrote regarding whether or not a sniper rifle is for fighting. Sniper rifles are used by one group of people applying deadly force to another group of people, and from what I hear from my friends who do it for a living, it's fairly serious and definitely "fighting."

 

[bkjeffrey]

AR15s have no place in this arguement. Just my opinion. He specifically asked about two types of bolt actions.

I'm hoping to get educated about this aspect of bolt actions.

Lets not confuse the intent of the OPs request for information.

 

[Zak Smith]

That's fine. It was too much of a stretch to think of a manually-operated AR action. The AI-AW video I posted proves the same points about the push feed.

 

[Maverick223]

I tested my Desert Tactical Arms SRS, and came up with the same result. I was unable to make it malfunction at any angle or inverted, but I know this is not the case for most PF rifles as I have had several fail in this manner (generally whilst testing for it, only one did so while using it in the field).

 

[blackops]

CRF has nothing to do with accuracy. It's simply a more reliable design for chambering a round. I personally prefer it over the R700. Too many times (which isn't a lot) I've had an R700 bolt not eject the case properly or slide right over the top of a cartridge and not chamber a round.

 

[RyanM]

That's fine. It was too much of a stretch to think of a manually-operated AR action.

A manual AR would be pretty similar to a Swiss straight-pull bolt-action rifle. I used to have a K-31, and it would feed just fine in any position, including upside down, closing the bolt as slow as possible. By the time the round popped out from under the feed lips, it was far enough into the chamber that there was no way for it to flop out.

So really, the only disadvantage of the push feed, in a rifle with a relatively closed receiver and relatively long feed lips, is that it can maybe double feed if you get confused in the middle of chambering a round.