I'm a little perplexed. I've always read that "controlled feed is more reliable, therefore it's preferred for dangerous game", etc. But in my limited experience with turnbolt rifles, it seems to me that the push feeds are quite a bit more reliable, because it just shoves the rounds right in. On the contrary, with controlled feeds, sometimes I will get jams as the round tries to pop up under the extractor - since this creates a higher angled-upward state of affairs with the cartridge, it makes it much more likely to jam high of the chamber opening. With a push feed, when the round pops up, it pops up instantly, with very little to no angling of the round, so it's instantly perfectly aligned to be shoved straight into the chamber. Of course, this comparison is valid I think for cycling while the rifle is straight up and down with the plane of the earth/ground. Perhaps a controlled feed is more reliable if the rifle is canted off to the side one way or the other - that would certainly stand to reason. What's y'alls experience?
Push feed vs. controlled feed redux
- Thread starter GunGoBoom
- Start date
- Status
Those arguments are what sells gun magazines. Once you cover the action types, calibers, and styles there is precious little to write about. I think both types are pretty much equal given equal quality weapons. The operator has to give a full stroke to the bolt and either should work. The original reason for controlled round feed has been posted many times by Mr. Keenan.
IMHO, you pays your money, you takes yer choice.
IMHO, you pays your money, you takes yer choice.
R.W.Dale
Member
AAH yes; Reminds me of the almighty cocks on closing VS cocks on opening debate. Seriously gun magazines need something to fill those 8 pages that aren't avertisments.
Dudes. That doesn't help me at all.
A. I'm not a gun writer. I'm telling you what *I* have experienced, that push feed is unequivocally more reliable than controlled feed, from direct experience. I'm asking what YOU have experienced - same or different? Or were you implying that YOUR experience dittos mine, and that's why gun writers are all wet, posting the contrary? Or what exactly are you saying (if anything)?
B. What is the original reason, in a nutshell? Is it, as I suspect, that it (controlled feed) IS more reliable under gravity-interfering situations, such as cycling with the rifle tilted horizontal or canted? Or another reason?
Thanks again.
A. I'm not a gun writer. I'm telling you what *I* have experienced, that push feed is unequivocally more reliable than controlled feed, from direct experience. I'm asking what YOU have experienced - same or different? Or were you implying that YOUR experience dittos mine, and that's why gun writers are all wet, posting the contrary? Or what exactly are you saying (if anything)?
B. What is the original reason, in a nutshell? Is it, as I suspect, that it (controlled feed) IS more reliable under gravity-interfering situations, such as cycling with the rifle tilted horizontal or canted? Or another reason?
Thanks again.
R.W.Dale
Member
Alright, In my experiance it makes NO diffrence what so ever none nada zip, Doesn't even become a consideration when I am looking for a rifle. Although I have one push feed rifle that does what you're describing from time to time.
Cpl Punishment
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 118
Well, my mil-surp guns are all controlled-feed. They work all the time (so long as I fully work the bolt)
The one push-feed gun works all the time (provided I fully work the bolt).
Looks pretty even to me.
One advantage of the push feed is for the target shooter: Target shooter tend to neck size their cartridges and like to single load them in the same orientation each time. Push feed is just fine with loading the chamber by hand. Controlled feed will ding up the rims and eventually damage the extractor if you keep "snapping" them over the rims.
The one push-feed gun works all the time (provided I fully work the bolt).
Looks pretty even to me.
One advantage of the push feed is for the target shooter: Target shooter tend to neck size their cartridges and like to single load them in the same orientation each time. Push feed is just fine with loading the chamber by hand. Controlled feed will ding up the rims and eventually damage the extractor if you keep "snapping" them over the rims.
Put it this way...
If you don't know what the benefit of controlled round feeding (CRF), ala' the typical Mauser pattern action w/claw extractor is, then you probably don't need to concern yourself about it. As mentioned above, paper-punchers fit that category, too.
We don't have the benefit of asking Peter or Paul Mauser why they felt it was so important a function to include on what was one of aguably the most popular military firearms in the world. I have an idea why, but we don't have full-scale frenzied skirmishes between the Bosch and the Doughboy, or between Waffen SS and Tommy Atkins to illustrate the perils of fast bolt manipulation in combat. Uncle Sam even saw fit to include the function for their 1903 series of Springfield rifles.
We can, however, ask Winchester, Ruger, and others why they go to the expense of including such an unnecessary function to their rifles if it's not warranted.
Being a control freak myself, all my big-game boltguns are CRF. That includes my .45-70 Siamese Mauser, which I intend to use against Cape Buffalo one day in the not-too-distant future.
If you don't know what the benefit of controlled round feeding (CRF), ala' the typical Mauser pattern action w/claw extractor is, then you probably don't need to concern yourself about it. As mentioned above, paper-punchers fit that category, too.
We don't have the benefit of asking Peter or Paul Mauser why they felt it was so important a function to include on what was one of aguably the most popular military firearms in the world. I have an idea why, but we don't have full-scale frenzied skirmishes between the Bosch and the Doughboy, or between Waffen SS and Tommy Atkins to illustrate the perils of fast bolt manipulation in combat. Uncle Sam even saw fit to include the function for their 1903 series of Springfield rifles.
We can, however, ask Winchester, Ruger, and others why they go to the expense of including such an unnecessary function to their rifles if it's not warranted.
Being a control freak myself, all my big-game boltguns are CRF. That includes my .45-70 Siamese Mauser, which I intend to use against Cape Buffalo one day in the not-too-distant future.
Is a remington 700 action push or controlled feed? I think its push right? thats what I hunt with and i can think of a few theoretical situations where the round might be affected by gravity on the way to chambering but 99.9 percent of the time I would never be chambering a round while upside down or canted to the side.. in a situation like that I think i would have my M1A anyway.
Chawbaccer
Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,865
Gewehr98 said:
Because the gun buying public (or writers) demanded it. Every new gun coming out was compared to the Pre-64 Winchester. Every review stated that >>>>THIS GUN WOULD BE PERFECT IF IT HAD CRF JUST LIKE THE PRE-64's<<<<.
By the way, Winchester found out that CRF wasn't so great with the itty-bitty-little-short-and-fat-super-duper-magnums, they had to make a modifyied bolt, the Controlled round push feed.
That's because Winchester made a grievous error in '64.
An error they paid dearly for, and the uproar lasted long enough they felt the need to reintroduce the pre-'64 CRF action in the recent 1988-on "Classic" Model 70 rifles. Ruger and other CRF rifle manufacturers would have been perfectly happy had Winchester stayed with push feed.
Mattw, the Remington Models 700, 7, 600, XP-100 pistol, 40X, 710, and new XR-100 bolt actions are all push feed. The extractor does not engage the cartridge rim until the cartridge is actually chambered.
Something else to consider - while a Remington, Savage, Ruger, or Winchester push feed action may never experience the dreaded gravity-drop, jam or short stroke induced double-feed, I've yet to see a CRF Mauser, Winchester, or Springfield rifle have an accidental discharge like those that happen when Remington safeties are pushed forward while a round is chambered. Why not? Because the CRF bolt guns have a true sear blocking safety that physically disables the striker/firing pin from moving forward. Another benefit of the design, as it were.
An error they paid dearly for, and the uproar lasted long enough they felt the need to reintroduce the pre-'64 CRF action in the recent 1988-on "Classic" Model 70 rifles. Ruger and other CRF rifle manufacturers would have been perfectly happy had Winchester stayed with push feed.
Mattw, the Remington Models 700, 7, 600, XP-100 pistol, 40X, 710, and new XR-100 bolt actions are all push feed. The extractor does not engage the cartridge rim until the cartridge is actually chambered.
Something else to consider - while a Remington, Savage, Ruger, or Winchester push feed action may never experience the dreaded gravity-drop, jam or short stroke induced double-feed, I've yet to see a CRF Mauser, Winchester, or Springfield rifle have an accidental discharge like those that happen when Remington safeties are pushed forward while a round is chambered. Why not? Because the CRF bolt guns have a true sear blocking safety that physically disables the striker/firing pin from moving forward. Another benefit of the design, as it were.
mtnbkr
Member
I don't recall where I read it, but I remember reading that CRF in the Mauser was to prevent a hurried soldier from short stroking his gun and double feeding it. As long as the bolt wasn't pulled all the way back, the next cartridge in the magazine wouldn't attempt to load. If the bolt was pulled all the way back, then the unfired cartridge would eject and the bolt would grab another.
All I know is that the only bolt guns that have ever jammed on me have been CRF guns. This includes a Mauser and a Winchester Classic. These were feed jams, not short-stroke jams.
Chris
All I know is that the only bolt guns that have ever jammed on me have been CRF guns. This includes a Mauser and a Winchester Classic. These were feed jams, not short-stroke jams.
Chris
USSR
Member
GGB,
I have 4 Winchester Model 70's (2 PF, 2 CRF), and here is what I can tell you regarding the ADVANTAGE of the CRF action. If you chamber a cartridge in a PF action where you are unable for whatever reason to completely chamber the cartridge (ie. bolt handle cannot be turned down) and the cartridge is stuck, I guarantee you will be looking for a cleaning rod to push down the barrel to unstick the cartridge. The claw extractor of the CRF action, on the other hand, will remove the cartridge from the chamber. Why? Because the claw extractor engages the rim from the get-go, while the PF action extractor does not engage the rim until the bolt handle is turned down. Many people site the CRF and other Mauser type actions as magazine feed actions only. This is ridiculous, as any gunsmith worth his salt can bevel the claw extractor to permit non-magazine single feeding very easily and cheaply, so that is not an issue. That being said, both are good designs. Hope that helps.
Don
I have 4 Winchester Model 70's (2 PF, 2 CRF), and here is what I can tell you regarding the ADVANTAGE of the CRF action. If you chamber a cartridge in a PF action where you are unable for whatever reason to completely chamber the cartridge (ie. bolt handle cannot be turned down) and the cartridge is stuck, I guarantee you will be looking for a cleaning rod to push down the barrel to unstick the cartridge. The claw extractor of the CRF action, on the other hand, will remove the cartridge from the chamber. Why? Because the claw extractor engages the rim from the get-go, while the PF action extractor does not engage the rim until the bolt handle is turned down. Many people site the CRF and other Mauser type actions as magazine feed actions only. This is ridiculous, as any gunsmith worth his salt can bevel the claw extractor to permit non-magazine single feeding very easily and cheaply, so that is not an issue. That being said, both are good designs. Hope that helps.
Don
rbernie
Contributing Member
If we're collecting anecdotes as if they mean something - I've never had a CRF rifle jam on me (Mausers and Enfields and Rugers, oh my) but have had short-stroke feed jams with my Vanguard.
A feed failure in a CRF design indicates that there is a flaw in the individual weapon, just as breaking the spring on a snap-over extractor would indicate a failure in a push feed weapon. If you have a CRF rifle that fails to feed properly - get the extractor fixed.
A feed failure in a CRF design indicates that there is a flaw in the individual weapon, just as breaking the spring on a snap-over extractor would indicate a failure in a push feed weapon. If you have a CRF rifle that fails to feed properly - get the extractor fixed.
sumpnz
Member
I only own CRF rifles. I've shot a couple push feeds. I have never had a FTF in my CRF guns, and not even really had any trouble in feeding. The couple push feeds I shot were a mixed bag. One was a tricked out .223 Savage and that was very nice. The other was a bone stock .270 Savage, and I was not impressed. I might have shot a Remington or two in the mix.
My personal preferance is for CRF, largely becuase I got my start shooting rifles so designed, but also because I've had better overall experiences with that action type.
In reality, there's no advantage to be gained either way when hunting deer/elk/antelope. When hunting bear/cape buff/lion the fact that the CRF does have the advantage that if you find yourself working the action while on your back, or while running (neither of these are exactly unheard of situations) you'll be more likely hear bang than click (and then see that shiny unfired cartridge laying in the dirt/grass) the next time you try to shoot at the animal.
For one round at a time target shooting, push feed may have some small advantage in that you can drop the round in the chamber rather than having to feed it from the magazine, but I don't see this as a huge issue.
My personal preferance is for CRF, largely becuase I got my start shooting rifles so designed, but also because I've had better overall experiences with that action type.
In reality, there's no advantage to be gained either way when hunting deer/elk/antelope. When hunting bear/cape buff/lion the fact that the CRF does have the advantage that if you find yourself working the action while on your back, or while running (neither of these are exactly unheard of situations) you'll be more likely hear bang than click (and then see that shiny unfired cartridge laying in the dirt/grass) the next time you try to shoot at the animal.
For one round at a time target shooting, push feed may have some small advantage in that you can drop the round in the chamber rather than having to feed it from the magazine, but I don't see this as a huge issue.
In essence, CRF reduces pucker factor.
From another forum. Although anecdotal to this discussion, the gentleman below would probably not pooh-pooh his own experience as an internet myth:
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/609644/Main/607770/
From another forum. Although anecdotal to this discussion, the gentleman below would probably not pooh-pooh his own experience as an internet myth:
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/609644/Main/607770/
browningguy
Member
As already mentioned, some say that a CRF action will feed under any angle, which is true of a well built one. The real advantage is when you short stroke the action loading a round. If you don't push all the way forward the pushfeed will not have locked onto the cartridge, when you retract and push forward again two rounds are jammed. With a CRF when you shortstoke, then pull to the rear, the round is ejected. The action then picks up the next round and you're back in business.
BusMaster007
Member
The other side of the story, from a different Forum: 
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13813&page=2
Gale McMillan posted this in March of 2000 ---
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13813&page=2
Gale McMillan posted this in March of 2000 ---
USSR
Member
And now the other, other side of the story, from a different forum.
posted by Bart Bobbit in 1994.
http://yarchive.net/gun/rifle/winchester_m70.html
Also, please note: Remington was sued for damages due to the failure of their safety, which resulted in them redesigning it; Winchester was not.
Don
posted by Bart Bobbit in 1994.
http://yarchive.net/gun/rifle/winchester_m70.html
Also, please note: Remington was sued for damages due to the failure of their safety, which resulted in them redesigning it; Winchester was not.
Don
USSR is right on. I see Bart Bobbit weekly during the winter (small bore league) and discuss his musings with him directly. In fact he has a nice 30-338 LR rifle built on, of course, a push feed M70 for sale if anyone is interested It may also interest you to know that Bart was one of the first shooters ever to fire an accurized AR15 in competition at the nationals at Camp Perry. I think it was 1973 if memory serves me correctly, as a military team shooter. He shot like a 187 with it at 600 yds with no 600 yd zero and 52 gr SMK bullets.
Another point on push versus CRF - every garand, M14, and M16 ever built is a push round design. The Garand/M14 are notable designs as these are open top actions, unlike the M16. With the millions of rounds fired in these rifles (Garand/M14) under conditions more harsh on a daily basis than we'll ever see in the hunting field in a lifetime, where are the documented failures to feed associated with the push feed design of these rifles?
On the safety lawsuit issue, it was Remington, not Winchester, that is involved in the lawsuits. When the 30th person was killed when a M700 AD'd after flicking off the safety, a mother killing her son no less, they issued the recall.
As far as a redesign goes, no Rem did not "redesign" the trigger/safety assy. It is the same old sheet metal/pot metal trigger group of the same design. All they did on the C series and later SNs from the factory was eliminate the metal tab that locked the bolt from opening attached to the safety mechanism; they just took the tab off, not materially changing the design. The recall took the pre-C series rifles in and they dremelled off the metal tab. This allows the bolt to be opened with the safety on, something that cannot be done as originally built.
The Win safety locks the firing pin in 2 of its 3 positions; no matter what happens with the trigger or sear, the rifle will not fire with the safety engaged. The Remmy design relies on the sear to hold the firing pin back in a "safe" position; the Win design does not.
It may also interest you to know that Bart was one of the first shooters ever to fire an accurized AR15 in competition at the nationals at Camp Perry. I think it was 1973 if memory serves me correctly, as a military team shooter. He shot like a 187 with it at 600 yds with no 600 yd zero and 52 gr SMK bullets.Another point on push versus CRF - every garand, M14, and M16 ever built is a push round design. The Garand/M14 are notable designs as these are open top actions, unlike the M16. With the millions of rounds fired in these rifles (Garand/M14) under conditions more harsh on a daily basis than we'll ever see in the hunting field in a lifetime, where are the documented failures to feed associated with the push feed design of these rifles?
On the safety lawsuit issue, it was Remington, not Winchester, that is involved in the lawsuits. When the 30th person was killed when a M700 AD'd after flicking off the safety, a mother killing her son no less, they issued the recall.
As far as a redesign goes, no Rem did not "redesign" the trigger/safety assy. It is the same old sheet metal/pot metal trigger group of the same design. All they did on the C series and later SNs from the factory was eliminate the metal tab that locked the bolt from opening attached to the safety mechanism; they just took the tab off, not materially changing the design. The recall took the pre-C series rifles in and they dremelled off the metal tab. This allows the bolt to be opened with the safety on, something that cannot be done as originally built.
The Win safety locks the firing pin in 2 of its 3 positions; no matter what happens with the trigger or sear, the rifle will not fire with the safety engaged. The Remmy design relies on the sear to hold the firing pin back in a "safe" position; the Win design does not.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Harder for an operator to short-stroke a semiauto, wouldn'tyasay?
ReadyontheRight
Member
I always thought the reason for controlled round feed for dangerous game was so that as you're rolling on the ground after being wacked by the Grizzly/Cape Buffalo/Velociraptor/Mutant Jackalope, you can load a new round while inverted.
Remember -- they distract you from the front while their buddy attacks from the side.
rbernie said:Harder for an operator to short-stroke a semiauto, wouldn'tyasay?
Short stroking a bolt action is Operator Error, regardless of extractor type. Solution = practice more with your rifle. If you are so worried about short stroking, then by all means shoot NOTHING but CRF rifles! It is always better to throw money at problems than actually work on one's own techniques and shortcomings I say.
And yes semi-autos like the M-14 and Garand can short stroke for a variety of reasons. They don't jam up though like the examples above - they don't pick up the next round and either do or don't eject the empty, depending on how short the stroke was/whether or not the empty cleared the chamber for the ejector to kick it out.
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
Someday I hope to be as perfect as him! ^^^
- Status
