Controlled round feed

[MarshallDodge]

@Varminterror
The modification that you mention to the extractor must be what someone did to the extractor on my Sako L461 action. It is chambered in 17-222 and it doesn't like to feed from the internal magazine. I attributed it to a combination of wildcat round with a magazine that doesn't like it but the extractor has been modified and it very well could be the issue.

I single feed it most of the time anyway.

 

[earlthegoat2]

I’m pretty sure there are precious few examples of Rem 700 extractor failures out there as well but that doesn’t stop anyone from installing Sako extractors in them.

Theoretical differences combined with peoples proclivity to tinker often overrules facts, reason, and logic.

 

[Walkalong]

My "claw" extractor FN-SPR feeds great from the mag, but it also single feeds super smoothly. I really like it a lot. My push feed Impact runs 100% as well, but I never try to chamber a round laying on my right side with the ejection port on the bottom tempting gravity.

 

[army_eod]

Then there is always lever action. Or semi-auto.

 

[Stumper]

Like most things that we gun nuts argue about the differences are both real and highly overrated in real world use. (I'm NOT picking a fight with CRF devotees-I prefer them in theory also.)

 

[Varminterror]

@Varminterror
The modification that you mention to the extractor must be what someone did to the extractor on my Sako L461 action. It is chambered in 17-222 and it doesn't like to feed from the internal magazine. I attributed it to a combination of wildcat round with a magazine that doesn't like it but the extractor has been modified and it very well could be the issue.

I single feed it most of the time anyway.

That problem would not be caused by any modification I’ve described. The L461 is a push feed rifle anyway.

What I’ve been describing is simply correcting the bevel, and polishing, on the nose of a controlled round claw extractor to allow better mechanical advantage, an easier ramp, to snap over the rim.

The same does apply for push feeders - an out of spec extractor without appropriate bevel can dead-length stop, with the “flat” landing on the case rim instead of the bevel, but it’s less common. The L461 extractor and bolt face are an entirely different design.

What I’ve been describing is evident when holding a true CRF mauser bolt beside a CRPF Win 70 bolt. The Mauser has a recess in the nose of the extractor to clear the case body, but this isn’t sufficiently beveled to encourage the stiff claw to snap over. Newer Win 70 claws have a much shallower angle to allow snap over. The end result isn’t quite as strong, but it’s plenty such, and more versatile.



Vs.

 

[Varminterror]

Then there is always lever action. Or semi-auto.

Which still fall into CRF and PF categories.

 

[MistWolf]

The reason for not single feeding a CRF rifle isn't because the claw won't snap over the rim. It's because with some rifles, doing so will eventually damage the extractor.

 

[Mosin77]

Pretty much all theoretical hand-wringing. But since most of our hunting and shooting and preparedness is theoretical, it’s a fair enough discussion. In practice, if you use your rifle like most folks, push feed is just fine. It’s also usually more affordable. And it works very well.

However... if you’re in some unusual scenario, in which you must depend on your rifle to an unusual extent... when you’re operating your bolt action in rainy sleet while the wind howls up the ravine upon the rim of which you are perched precariously, after having laboriously inched your way there after 3 hours of excruciatingly patient crawling, in order to get a once-in-a-lifetime shot at a record-breaking Dall’s Sheep..... it’s probably a great idea to have CRF to give you that extra margin of safety against an inopportune misfeed which might cost you your shot. Likewise, if you find yourself in a muddy trench near the Somme in 1915, facing an advancing tide of Tommies, well, you’ll probably be happy to know that your rifle is that much more unlikely to jam, thanks to its designer’s thoughtful inclusion of a CRF-type system.

For the rest of us, whether we pay for the more expensive rifles which typically feature this depends far less on practicality, and far more on what we’ve recently been reading about.

 

[MarshallDodge]

Pretty much all theoretical hand-wringing. But since most of our hunting and shooting and preparedness is theoretical, it’s a fair enough discussion. In practice, if you use your rifle like most folks, push feed is just fine. It’s also usually more affordable. And it works very well.

However... if you’re in some unusual scenario, in which you must depend on your rifle to an unusual extent... when you’re operating your bolt action in rainy sleet while the wind howls up the ravine upon the rim of which you are perched precariously, after having laboriously inched your way there after 3 hours of excruciatingly patient crawling, in order to get a once-in-a-lifetime shot at a record-breaking Dall’s Sheep..... it’s probably a great idea to have CRF to give you that extra margin of safety against an inopportune misfeed which might cost you your shot. Likewise, if you find yourself in a muddy trench near the Somme in 1915, facing an advancing tide of Tommies, well, you’ll probably be happy to know that your rifle is that much more unlikely to jam, thanks to its designer’s thoughtful inclusion of a CRF-type system.

For the rest of us, whether we pay for the more expensive rifles which typically feature this depends far less on practicality, and far more on what we’ve recently been reading about.

So true. It's funny that when I hear these discussions about mud, snow, and rain, it brings me back to a discussion I started years ago on another forum. The question was "How far would you feel comfortable taking a first round shot at an animal?"

Many answered that if the conditions weren't clear and calm, then they would not take the shot. Kind of negates the need for the extra benefits of CRF.