R.W.Dale
Member
The only real difference is the name and the hawkeye stainless comes with a <????> bead blast "finish"
posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about
Last edited by a moderator:
Push Feed Bolt Actions
- Thread starter elktrout
- Start date
- Status
The only real difference is the name and the hawkeye stainless comes with a <????> bead blast "finish"
posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about
You can sit here all day and pretend the CRF is better then the pushfeed or the opposite. Myself, I find neither as being better then the other for my needs.
In 36 years I've never had a failure to feed in either my Winchesters or Remingtons and these were all pushfeeds. Savage rifles however were a different story.
One thing I've noticed about those that prefer the CRF, most seem to have been exposed to the CRF of the older produciton Winchesters.
I don't prefer one over the other, if you do more power to you. But, I'll put my money on betting Winchester goes back to the pushfeed at some point in the future. It's cheaper to produce and that's the bottom line.
In 36 years I've never had a failure to feed in either my Winchesters or Remingtons and these were all pushfeeds. Savage rifles however were a different story.
One thing I've noticed about those that prefer the CRF, most seem to have been exposed to the CRF of the older produciton Winchesters.
I don't prefer one over the other, if you do more power to you. But, I'll put my money on betting Winchester goes back to the pushfeed at some point in the future. It's cheaper to produce and that's the bottom line.
Sav .250
Member
If you owned both type (which I have) and have had not a problem one. I don`t get it.
It`s almost like, do you push your car or pull it? It gets there either way.
It`s almost like, do you push your car or pull it? It gets there either way.
Kachok
Member
It's like front wheel drive vs rear wheel drive cars, the front wheel drive will do everything the other does, it just does not feel as good doing it, hence the notable majority of luxury cars are RWD just like the majority of custom rifles are built on CRF actions, and virtualy all economy cars are FWD because they are cheaper to build.. I worked as a car salesman for some years, and it amazed me that some people could not tell the difference. Same with rifles, though now a 98 is not the smoothest action I have ever seen, that darn (pushfeed) Tikka puts them all to head hanging shame, my 700s, 70s, Browning, Savages and yes even the old M38s and K98s were not that slick.
krinko
Member
Just to clear up one little misconception---my push feed 1977 Model 70 in 375 H&H Magnum will, absolutely, feed properly in the upside-down position.
As for fishing this rifle out of the streambed to face the charge of an enraged Grizzley---if it jams, I will use it to break the kneecap of my hunting companion and then run like the dickens.
-----krinko
As for fishing this rifle out of the streambed to face the charge of an enraged Grizzley---if it jams, I will use it to break the kneecap of my hunting companion and then run like the dickens.
-----krinko
Kachok
Member
I am never going hunting with you EVER LOL As the old joke goes "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you"
MCgunner
Member
I have a 122 year old Commission rifle who's bolt is smoother than any commercial rifle I've ever tried. I don't hunt with it, just sayiin'. One can open the bolt on that gun, tilt it back ever so slightly, and as if on ball bearings, greased at that, it slowly slides open under the control of Sir Newton. My two Remingtons require slightly more elevation, my Savage has to be danged near vertical, but that's okay, the Savage is a budget gun that shoots lights out accurately. That's what really matters to me as it's the first shot that gets the job done and even when I toss another in the chamber after that shot, I never notice how smooth the bolt is or isn't. I'm concentrating on other things.
I'll compare my old Remington M722's smoothness of bolt action to anything available commercially under 1500 bucks today. That gun has slain untold numbers of deer between my grandpa and myself. I like the caliber, too, .257 Roberts.
One can open the bolt on that gun, tilt it back ever so slightly, and as if on ball bearings, greased at that, it slowly slides open under the control of Sir Newton. My two Remingtons require slightly more elevation, my Savage has to be danged near vertical, but that's okay, the Savage is a budget gun that shoots lights out accurately. That's what really matters to me as it's the first shot that gets the job done and even when I toss another in the chamber after that shot, I never notice how smooth the bolt is or isn't. I'm concentrating on other things.I'll compare my old Remington M722's smoothness of bolt action to anything available commercially under 1500 bucks today. That gun has slain untold numbers of deer between my grandpa and myself. I like the caliber, too, .257 Roberts.
MCgunner
Member
I don't know, might be some around. And, yeah, Winchester brought back the "classic" with CRF back in the 90s. They might have quit making the stamped steel push feed 70s in 09, don't know, haven't kept up with rifles as I have what i need, want, and like already.
Reason I say there might be some push feeders around is everyone buys ARs now days. For a bolt gun to sell well, it has to have a tacticool "sniper" polymer stock on it bare minimum so it can be tacticool.
Oh, and it needs a removable box mag, hinged floor plate just won't do. I have no use for an AR, just sayin' that's what sells now days. I can imagine lots of bolt guns languish on the shelves in great hunting calibers while all the tacticool kids convert their ARs to 6.8 or some caliber named for an old English poem in an attempt to be adequate for hunting even deer. Pretty stupid, but then, I'm an old Fudd.Sorry about the little rant, just my thinkin'.
Quite good rant really. I just laugh at the youngsters buying bolt rifles today. As said, it has to have a mag and some type of tacticool polymer stock.Reason I say there might be some push feeders around is everyone buys ARs now days. For a bolt gun to sell well, it has to have a tacticool "sniper" polymer stock on it bare minimum so it can be tacticool.
Sorry about the little rant, just my thinkin'.
And that's the reason I predict the CRF won't be around long. These kids don't even know what it is.
I'm seeing some mistaken ideas about both types. The difference is NOT CRF= good extractor, PF= poorer extractor type. Balony! There are push feed actions that have mauser type extractors, that is NOT the difference! The ONLY difference is if the extractor grabs the cartridge as it comes up out of the magazine, period. It has little to do with the type of extractor, meaning push feed automatically have some sort of inferior extractor. Some do, some don't, but that alone is not the determining factor. CRF is a mechanical advantage when the OPERATOR fails to close the action on a round they just chambered (push feed did not snap over cartridge rim), then tries to chamber another round. That is the only practical functional/reliability difference. If one runs their action properly, sharply in both directions at all times, either will work as reliably as the other.
Mausers can be made so that a round can be dropped into the chamber and the bolt closed on it, the military ones didnt, but most commercial Mauser sporters do. A small bevel on the extractor face makes this possible. It's done by some gunsmiths when making sporters from military actions. They are still CRF, just that the extractor can snap over a rim when dropped in. The early type Ruger 77's have always had Mauser type extractors, and been push feed (spring plunger in the bolt face for an ejector instead of a solid one in the action). No difference in extractor type, just in the fact that it doesnt grab the round coming out of the magazine. So what. The difference is in operator functioning properly, not any mechanical reliability difference over how the action chambers a round.
Some push feed actions do indeed use comparatively wimpy extractors, but that's not to say that any gun that is PF has an inferior extractor to any CRF gun. Many push feed actions are considered very reliable, like the M-1 Garand, and the AK. They also have robust extractors. The point about them being push feed is never mentioned that I recall.
As to falling in a creek, etc, somebdy please explain how the feed difference would make any difference in whether the gun would fire when needed after falling in a creek? I use both. I live in grizzly country and carry any time I'm out. I've had no functioning issues with either type under any conditions* and have zero reservations about either type. I also don't mollycoddle the bolt when practicing. One of the old time writers advised to "run the bolt like you're mad at it" (the heck with the brass, look for it after your all done shooting for the day, I'd rather lose some brass than develop bad habits). I have for ages, and have never ever had a feed or extraction problem. I agree the CRF is theoretically "better" in the one instance of operator error and trying to double feed one, but I can't tell any practical difference when the gun is run properly. Train like you plan to use them, and you arent going to have a problem.
* Other than a Whitworth Mauser in 375 that hadn't had the receiver clearanced properly and was knocking the case out of the extracor before it was out of the action. Shells often dropped into the action rather than ejecting until I figured out what was happening, and clearanced the receiver. Being a CRF though, it was impossible that it could malfunction in any way,.....
I guess I'm guilty of being a Fudd also. I've had AR's in the past, but when I needed money, they were the ones that got sold, not my good bolt sporters. I really don't miss the AR's, I did terribly miss my Ruger 77 in 338 when I foolishly traded it off. Fortunately I was able to trade back into it years later.
Whitworth,
Mausers can be made so that a round can be dropped into the chamber and the bolt closed on it, the military ones didnt, but most commercial Mauser sporters do. A small bevel on the extractor face makes this possible. It's done by some gunsmiths when making sporters from military actions. They are still CRF, just that the extractor can snap over a rim when dropped in. The early type Ruger 77's have always had Mauser type extractors, and been push feed (spring plunger in the bolt face for an ejector instead of a solid one in the action). No difference in extractor type, just in the fact that it doesnt grab the round coming out of the magazine. So what. The difference is in operator functioning properly, not any mechanical reliability difference over how the action chambers a round.
Some push feed actions do indeed use comparatively wimpy extractors, but that's not to say that any gun that is PF has an inferior extractor to any CRF gun. Many push feed actions are considered very reliable, like the M-1 Garand, and the AK. They also have robust extractors. The point about them being push feed is never mentioned that I recall.
As to falling in a creek, etc, somebdy please explain how the feed difference would make any difference in whether the gun would fire when needed after falling in a creek? I use both. I live in grizzly country and carry any time I'm out. I've had no functioning issues with either type under any conditions* and have zero reservations about either type. I also don't mollycoddle the bolt when practicing. One of the old time writers advised to "run the bolt like you're mad at it" (the heck with the brass, look for it after your all done shooting for the day, I'd rather lose some brass than develop bad habits). I have for ages, and have never ever had a feed or extraction problem. I agree the CRF is theoretically "better" in the one instance of operator error and trying to double feed one, but I can't tell any practical difference when the gun is run properly. Train like you plan to use them, and you arent going to have a problem.
* Other than a Whitworth Mauser in 375 that hadn't had the receiver clearanced properly and was knocking the case out of the extracor before it was out of the action. Shells often dropped into the action rather than ejecting until I figured out what was happening, and clearanced the receiver. Being a CRF though, it was impossible that it could malfunction in any way,.....
I guess I'm guilty of being a Fudd also. I've had AR's in the past, but when I needed money, they were the ones that got sold, not my good bolt sporters. I really don't miss the AR's, I did terribly miss my Ruger 77 in 338 when I foolishly traded it off. Fortunately I was able to trade back into it years later.
Whitworth,
Last edited:
Kachok
Member
Very true, but also remember that extractor claws tend to be quite a bit stronger then the tiny little extractors on MOST push feeds, I remember reading a test once of a Mauser action vs a Rem 700 the Remingtons extractor broke at just under 100lbs of pulling force and the Mauser around 300lbs, now personally if I ever need 100lbs of extracting force to eject a cartridge something is desperately wrong and I would bring it to a gunsmith anyway, but nothing wrong with a little extra strength. Pushfeeds can vary wildly in extractors, so it would not be fair to call them weak, I have owned more push feeds then I care to count and have yet to break an extractor on any of them.
MCgunner
Member
Shoot what you like, of course, but my 722 Remmy was bought by my grandpa in the 50s and I ain't broke an extractor, yet. Only time I had any extraction problems was necking down 7x57 brass to .257. The stuff worked, but the rim was a bit too thick. It extracted, but would hang occasionally on ejection. No problems with Winchester +P brass, though. I've never had a problem nor my grandpa in nearly 60 years with this rifle. Only time I ever took it to a gunsmith was to have the front sight removed and the barreled action reblued.
Kachok
Member
I think I just said I never had a problem with them either, again not knocking them, but if you measure the strength of both a 98 style action is indeed the stronger of the two. For a hunting/target rifle there is no differce because in the 1 in a million chance you cannot extract your brass with 100lbs of force you can just bring it to a smith, for a battle rifle or a SHTF rifle a 98 action would be a practical choice, hence you did not seen many (if any) pushfeeds on the battlefields of WWI or WWII.
I agree, many push feed actons have smaller extractors, I was making the pint that PF vs CRF isnt the actual determining factor tough. All CRF have more rebist extractors, but not all PF have wimpy extractors. The example of the Ruger 77's is that some PF actions heve virtually identical extractors to Mausers.
I prefer the Mauser type extractor by far, and make my choices in bolt guns based on that as a major factor, but the action doesn't have to be a CRF to have that type extractor. Just pointing out that the direction of the conversation wasn't based on actual differences, but in perceived differences more than anything, with some mistaken concepts about both being thrown in.
Kachok
Member
?? Ruger 77s are a CRF rifle, they did make a hybrid quite a few years back on the early MkIIs that was not CRF (using up existing pushfeed bolts) but those are few and far between from what I understand.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
More of the case head of the cartridge is supported by a push-feed, which is why they can tolerate higher chamber pressures.
Otherwise? It's just what you're preferring and you're acquainted with. They both work just fine.
Otherwise? It's just what you're preferring and you're acquainted with. They both work just fine.
MCgunner
Member
Something Remington used to hawk as an "advantage" is the fact that the bolt is recessed and rides up over the rim to fully inclose the round in the chamber...added safety in case of a case failure. Haven't seen anyone mention this in this thread. I've never had such a case failure. I get rid of brass after the primer pocket gets loose and i don't over-load my reloads past SAAMI. Well, I say that, the .257 is pushing .25/06 pressures, but seems quite safe at that level. .257 Roberts SAAMI limits are a joke in a good, strong, safe rifle like the Remington.
I don't own a "SHTF rifle. I don't believe in it. I own 20+ long guns, don't see where any one of them wouldn't do in that case, anyway. I don't do BOBs, ain't a prepper, just a hunter. I've been on this earth 60 years. If the SHTF, I've lived a good long life anyway and Jesus is my savior. I do have these 2 SKSs and a Hakim battle rifle in 8x57, though, that should be better than any bolt gun anyway in such a case. And, I have the old 8x57S barreled commission rifle. I guess that rifle is better than my Remington M7 when the SHTF?
MCgunner
Member
Damn, Art beat me to it.
Typical Art, always on-the-stick.
For my part, I have about an equal number of push-feed rifles and controlled-round feed rifles. Darnedest thing is, not a one of them ever has failed to feed. The only failures to extract were in two of my M700s, and occurred because the snap-in extractors had failed. One of those rifles also experienced failures to eject, because the bolt face was shaving off brass, and clogged the ejector plunger in the closed position.
That said, according to my Uncle Dave, he has had failures with both types of bolts. I guess anything mechanical can and eventually will fail.
Geno
For my part, I have about an equal number of push-feed rifles and controlled-round feed rifles. Darnedest thing is, not a one of them ever has failed to feed. The only failures to extract were in two of my M700s, and occurred because the snap-in extractors had failed. One of those rifles also experienced failures to eject, because the bolt face was shaving off brass, and clogged the ejector plunger in the closed position.
That said, according to my Uncle Dave, he has had failures with both types of bolts. I guess anything mechanical can and eventually will fail.
Geno
Kachok
Member
Jesus might not have been a harcore prepper but he did believe in being prepared, and he knows everything that is going to happen
Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end."
So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords."
And He said to them, "It is enough." " (Luke 22:35-38, NKJV)
Now I don't have a bomb shelter with 7 years worth of canned food and an arsenal of assault rifle (don't own any actually), but I like to be ready in event of another disaster or Great Depression style collapse.
Art Eatman said:
How do you explain these Remington bolt faces? A 55ksi cartridge bolt face with considerably more support than a 61ksi cartridge bolt face.
Personally, I consider the Remington extractor to be a POS compared to any Sako, AR15 or CRF extractor. With a decent extractor the Remington is a good rifle. However, I consider the fixed blade ejector common with CRFs to be a superior design to the plunger ejector common on push feed rifles. I have PFs from Accuracy International and Remington and CRFs from Kimber and Winchester.
Art wasn't talking in absolutes, I am sure there are even more that don't have a lot of case support. Generally speaking a well designed rifle with push feed will have more case support because there is no requirement for such a large extractor as with the typical CRF rifle. Look at a Sako bolt for a great example. It would appear from those bolts Remington took some cost out by not fully enclosing the round with the bolt. That Remington .338 looks scary thin to me.
Yes, the Mk II's are CRF. I wasn't clear on that, mine are all pre-MKII tang safety guns, which are push feed.
The comments on bolt case support are good. It was a point of much advertising ink being spilt in years past that the newer bolt actions had more of the cartridge case head enclosed in case of a cartridge case failure than the older style bolts. It isn't talked about much these days, but was a topic of discussion in years past, and one of the supposed advantages of newer styles, like the Rem 700 type etc. When that topic was brought up, there wasnt too much talk of CRF as a huge issue. Interesting how things come around in time.
Again, it was never an issue that I ever heard of that the CRF was "more reliable" in totallity over a push feed, only in the event of a short stroke (operator error). Either feeds equally well in actual operation as fas as I've ever heard, its just that little issue of not operating your gun properly and causing a problem. I think the supposed advantage somehow gets turned into a complete system disadvantage regarding a push feed action, when such was never the case.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
