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,