Push feed vs Controlled round feed: When did the Push feed fail you?

[High Plains]

Push feed rifles outnumber control round feed rifles 2:1 for me. Neither action has failed me when it came to removing a spent case and feeding a new cartridge while hunting. I have read and heard from numerous hunters that the CRF is more reliable. What I want to know from you all is (1) if a push feed type action ever failed you on the hunt and (2) do you believe said failure was a mechanical /design issue, short-stroking the bolt, or something else?
Several years ago I had two tags to fill on the last day of the antlerless White tail season. After the first shot, I rapidly auctioned the CRF bolt which sent the case flying, just as it is supposed to. My second and third shots on a different White tail were misses, and the fourth shot on a doe next to where the first one fell hit nicely. After the second doe went down I wondered if the same fast shots would have been possible with a push feed action because I didn’t look at the receiver to see if cartridges were feeding properly. In my humble opinion, the style of action made no difference due to the full and rapid working of the bolt.

 

[earlthegoat2]

There are countless theoretical and real ways these two action types are different and just as many advantages and disadvantages.

In typical real world scenarios they make very little difference. All out cycling is similar. Slow cycling can be very different. Upside down cycling is night and day difference between the two.

Short stroking a CRF may fail to eject while shorting a push feed may fail to eject or eject fine but fail to feed.

I personally feel I can cycle push feed guns faster. That may be illusion though as I have never timed myself or done a mad minute with either type and I am not going to as I just don’t care enough. Suffice to say that I generally prefer push feeds though I am aware of all the characteristics of CRFs too.

There are comparatively very few short action CRFs vs push feeds out there. Short action cartridges being more “modern” and the perception that short actions and the cartridges they fire are somehow better, is a big reason why push feeds are more prevalent. Push feeds are also quite a bit less expensive to manufacture and are the de facto type for the newer economy model bolt actions.

In the end there are technical differences and I agree that CRFs are more reliable in the end. I prefer push feeds for the most part.

 

[Aletheia]

Not once in my 72 years have I said to myself, "If I had just been using a controlled feed rifle, rather than this push feed POS I would have made that shot." Not once. And just for interest, not once have I said, "If I was using a short action rifle, I would have made that shot." Just for interest.

 

[LoonWulf]

When either are working right, and used correctly it dosent matter, when either ARNT it dosent matter.......

 

[EIB0879]

Never had an issue with push feed.

 

[swg1]

One Savage, one Winchester and a Ruger. Work the bolt hard and the rounds would all spit out the top of the magazine. Not a round, all of them in the magazine. The first two were a buddy's rifles, the ruger was mine.

 

[792mauser]

Only time I've ever seen an issue was on the firing line a lifetime ago.

Let a father and son? fire my commission G88 rifle. The kid loaded up and fired 3 outta 5 rounds. The warning just before cease fire was called and he popped the clip out with 1 round in it.
But left the round in the chamber since be didn't engage the extractor by locking it down.

That is the only issue I've had with any push feed rifles.

A minor issue as long as you don't slam another round in and hit the primer.
(Seeing as that we do not hear about that happening daily with all the PF rifles out there, a minor issue)

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

What ever!

I'll worry about controlled-feed when CMP gets to sell the Space-Forces' surplus sniper rifles.

Until then, I don't shoot upside-down.

"In space no one can hear you scream... alibi!"

Todd.

 

[JohnKSa]

Upside down cycling is night and day difference between the two.

Is it? I don't remember the details now, but I'm pretty sure that at one point Craig Boddington did some testing with push feed rifles and found that they cycled just fine upside down.

I suspect that if you hold a push-feed rifle at just the right attitude (muzzle up and turned over to the right a bit) it might be possible to get the rounds to drop out in some cases during feeding, but I think that if they're just turned upside they work ok.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that's an important feature of a firearm, I think it's not unusual for lever- and pump-action guns to have issues when cycled in unusual positions but that rarely seems to be pointed out as a fatal flaw. I know, for example, that an 870 can sometimes drop a live round out the ejection port when cycled slowly turned on its right side and I think the open-top lever actions will put cartridges on the ground if cycled upside down.

 

[.38 Special]

I recall Boddington's tests. He also mentions them in his dangerous game rifle books. Essentially, a reader challenged him to actually try it, rather than just repeat what he'd heard, and it turned out that his Remington 700s would feed just fine regardless of how they were held.

I personally have had more troubles with CRF than PF. In my experience a CRF rifle is much more likely to need work out of the box. As LoonWulf points out, though, once either style is working it is no better or worse than the other.

 

[earlthegoat2]

When I posted the upside down thing I was more thinking about slowly cycling the action while upside down. It is possible this would still result in a perfectly functioning push feed.

I agree it is a silly concept and should not be a deciding factor between the two.

 

[H&Hhunter]

When either are working right, and used correctly it dosent matter, when either ARNT it dosent matter.......

This^^^

I’ve had failures to extract with both PF and CRF. One was a busted extractor on a 700, the others have been on CRF and all were stuck case issues. If a case is stuck hard enough that the rim pulls off I don’t think the action type is going to matter.

I used to be a CRF purist but some of my favorite rifles are now PF’s. Theoretically the CRF has some advantages when hunting DG. I’d not turn down a DG hunt if I was forced to use a PF rifle. One of the things I really enjoy about a CRF rifle with a blind magazine is the ability to unload it by partially cycling the bolt and not having to chambered the rounds to extract them.

Which of course is the reason they are harder to double feed, feed while in awkward positions etc.

Things that are not valid for 99.99% of hunting situations.

 

[jmr40]

Under "Normal" conditions both work equally well. And to be fair most of us will never put our rifles in a position for it to matter, but CRF will work in conditions where a PF will not.

Most people concentrate on the "feeding" since CRF stands for Controlled Round Feeding, but the real advantage to CRF is more reliable extraction and ejection. Both FEED equally well upside down or any other way. But if you're in conditions where the rifle is used in snow, ice, extreme cold, dusty, or muddy conditions the large claw extractor and fixed blade ejector are more likely to continue working. It doesn't take much dirt, dust, rust, or snow in the right place to prevent the tiny extractors from grabbing a cartridge rim or the spring loaded ejector from working on a PF rifle. A case that was dirty may be hard to extract with a PF rifle where the large CRF claw extractor will pull it out of the chamber.

During WW-1 with the soldiers fighting in the trenches with mud up to their knees this proved to be a huge advantage. Back in the day when hunters went on long wilderness hunts staying out in harsh conditions for weeks at a time with no way to properly clean a rifle it was an advantage.

You see a lot of recommendations for CRF for dangerous game. It isn't necessarily that they feed more reliably, it's just that they can withstand more abuse than PF.

Today virtually all hunters start the day with a clean rifle taken from a safe and day hunt returning the rifle to the same safe later. If it gets snowed on or dropped in mud it can easily be cleaned. And as long as PF rifles are kept reasonably clean they do work just as well. And an argument can be made they work better.

I have both, more PF than CRF. But if I were on a wilderness hunt in harsh weather conditions I still trust my CRF rifles to work when things go bad. I've had floorplates freeze up and had to unload each round through the action and I've had spring loaded ejectors on PF rifles freeze and fail to work when hunting in snow.

 

[Mosin77]

I can imagine some scenarios where CRF is better. But in the real world where I’d be hunting deer or rabbits and not stalking a dall’s sheep while lying at a strange mountainside angle in mud and foul weather, or short-stroking my gun because I am panicked by a lion roaring in my direction at 50 yards.... I don’t think crf matters that much. I also think if I could afford those hunts I could also afford to pick up a CRF rifle for the occasion if I didn’t already have one. My main hunting rifle is a CRF mauser sporter that I picked up for 250 bucks, so they don’t have to be expensive. But I would not feel undergunned at all in normal circumstances with a commercial push feed rifle. The weak link would be me, not the gun.

 

[troy fairweather]

Give me crf way to many push feed don't even have a bolt lock.

 

[memtb]

My push-feeds have not failed me yet! There’s always a first time.....but, I believe the fail to feeds to be rare! And likely.......”not” the firearms fault! memtb

 

[nettlle]

I love a controlled feed rifle and have one. But I have owned several push feeds and have never had a problem with them. The sniper rifles the US military uses are Model 700's push feed. I'm sure feeding reliability is high on the list for them.

 

[Varminterror]

Tactical Rifle matches and PRS matches have asked us to fire and cycle our rifles laying on our sides many times for many years.... the majority of the rifles being used for these matches are push feeders...

Ran smoothly and steadily, there’s no difference. If you choke, clutch, or hesitate on feeding, you can cause a misfeed in a push feeder more easily than a controlled round feeder... but only considering the controlled round feeder is actually operating as a controlled round feeder. Many do not.

 

[Alaskan Ironworker]

A coned breech is a better expenditure of machining efforts to improve reliability Imho. Having said that, I prefer crf because thats what mausers are, and I like how hard a mauser hits primers, which is a real world problem ive encountered with modern rifles multiple times which has cost me a boar once and just dissapointed me target shooting the other times.

 

[243winxb]

This is my thinking.

So it’s no surprise that some of the most vocal proponents of the controlled feed action are folks who hunt dangerous game.

Better extraction with controlled feed?

See videos https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/controlled-feed-vs-push-feed-rifles/

 

[Llama Bob]

The first thing is, most rifles of both types do not actually feed reliably. This has always been a problem with civilian actions, but it's become worse in the last 20 years or so I think. You can find some way to either make them jam, or make them eject their rounds when feeding. This situation persists because most people do not plan on encountering danger with their bolt action rifle and don't think about it or test it.

Some, but not all, PF rifles have problems feeding at odd angles. I had a Browning 71 with that issue. It ended up converted to a .50-110, and in the process an "S hook" from the 1886 action was installed. The resulting action feeds at all angles and could reasonably be considered a controlled feed.

In terms of bolt actions, as mentioned it is possible to get fairly consistent feeding at odd angles with a push feed and the magazine controlling the round. But there's no question in my mind that CRF is at least modestly better at feeding, and far better at preventing double feeds and at extraction and ejection. The extraction is the most important part from a reliability perspective. In order to get the full benefit, you must have the extractor and barrel cut sized so that the extractor cannot pop over the case rim. This means you can't push feed if you want to, but it also means that primary extraction will either extract the round, or rip the rim off the case trying. That's what you want.

There's s reason CRF actions are standard for dangerous game.

People also forget how common trigger failures are. I've had those in the field due to humidity and ice. In bear country I won't use cartridge type triggers any more. This is the downfall of the otherwise exceptional Kimbers, FN model 70s and CZ 550s. The Timney and AHR replacements for the 550 are a reasonable fix though. The other two have no fix that I know of. The old M70 trigger is the gold standard.

Bolt locking safeties are a very good thing - I would even say essential - and usually though not always associated with CRF.

 

[entropy]

They haven't failed me yet, but I don't go into combat or hunt the Big 5 with them, either.

 

[Nature Boy]

CRF with claw extractors are cool. I like things that are cool.

Mods: lock the thread

 

[Archie]

The controlled feed rifle was designed with conscripted soldiers in mind. If a soldier panics and short strokes the action, the arm does not hopelessly jam. It requires a full stroke to work.

When Mauser introduced the controlled feed aspect, they also added the third (safety) lug that proclaims this is stronger (popularly thought 'better') than the push feed variety. So controlled feed is good, push feed not so good.

Just for the record, I have never had to operate a bolt action rifle while upside down. Let me consult the memory banks. Nope. Never.

Also, if one remembers to open the action and pull the bolt FULLY TO THE REAR, then push the bolt FULLY TO THE FRONT and close, a push feed mechanism is the equal of the controlled system.

 

[High Plains]

For hunting rifles, a Mauser 98 style has been plenty accurate and reliable. One-shot, bang flop results with deer is all the proof I need for how accurate the rifle is —— the loose nut behind the rifle is the largest variable. A gunsmith friend of mine explained how the full case head support of the Rem 700 style bolt face is seen by some as an and over the Mauser design. To me, it’s not a factor as the CRF is always going to feed straight, extract and toss the case clear of the magazine. The rifles the gunsmith puts together are drop dead accurate so how could I complain?