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

[earlthegoat2]

In many ways, all the bolt action rifles we know today are close copies of the Mauser. The Remington 700 "3 rings of steel" as you refer to above is an innovation originally started on the Remington 721/722 series. Whether it is a significant improvement or not is subject to debate. The same can be said for the push feed innovation as we are doing right this second.

The history of sporting bolt action rifles start with the Mauser. The 1903 Springfield, of which many sporting rifles were made from, and later on the 1917 Enfield were controlled round feed. The 1903 was even too close of a copy of the Mauser and patent infringement royalties were awarded to Mauser. The Winchester Model 54, the precursor to the Model 70, is said to be based directly off of Mauser commercial actions.

The Remington Model 30 originally used modified 1917 actions. This eventually evolved to the Model 720 which is very similar to the Model 30 and then the 721/722s. The 721/722s were much closer in design to the 700 with the extractor in the recessed bolt face and plunger ejector. Two features very common to early push feeds. Of course the design was adopted because of cost cutting measures and took advantage of the then modern post WW2 manufacturing techniques. Savage did the same with their 110 series in 1958 whereas Remington was making the 721s in 1948.

 

[H&Hhunter]

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.

This post explains the advantages of CRF very well. I see a lot of people talk about how they see no reason to ever need a CRF rifle based on their hunting experience, and they’re right.

99.9% of hunters do not “need” a CRF action. And if you’ve never done a serious back country pack in multi day hunt in griz country or a no kidding DG hunt in thick Jesse or swamp grass in Africa. It’s tough to understand how a real life CRF with a beefy extractor and an open bar and spring style trigger could be the difference between success and failure, or even life or death.
And while the gold standard used to be a double rifle or a Mauser style action bolt gun for any and all PH work in Africa. Now days you’ll see PLENTY of PF Winchester M-70’s and Blazer R-8’s in the hands of African PH’s.

 

[entropy]

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?

The thread has nothing to do with accuracy. It is about 100% positive function under dangerous circumstances in unusual positions where the rifleman might have a round fall out of the action due to the position of the rifle, or a double feed - both are eliminated with a controlled-feed action, whereas they are possible with a push-feed action. Paul Mauser designed a rifle for combat, and it also was popular for hunting dangerous game for the same reasons it was an excellent combat rifle. It was reliable in the conditions I just mentioned. Many copied it. Read earlthegoat2's post above for the history of bolt action rifle receiver design since then. He covered it pretty well. (Except the Blaser, mentioned by H&H.)

 

[Slamfire]

I don't have a bolt face picture of my Mauser M71-84, but all the old Mauser actions were push feed.



That is till the 1893-94 actions were Mauser made the actions controlled feed to prevent double feeding. The military extractor was designed to feed from the magazine only! The true Mauser military extractor is not beveled at the bottom, such as the commercial M98 extractors, there is a slight rounding at the bottom of the extractor to allow the extractor to snap over a cartridge rim



Ruger removed a lot of material so the extractor would snap over a round in the chamber




I think this is the magazine only feed, military Mauser extractor



I don't have many feed from the magazine only extractors, because I have had issues, during rapid fire, where the round popped out in front of the bolt face, and I could not close the bolt. This will cause an alibi in competition, as I could not pluck the round out of the chamber with a fingernail. I had to break position, bang the rifle butt on the ground, to extract the round. What I have done with feed from the magazine only extractors, is bevel/round the bottom with a dremel tool till the bolt closes on a round in the chamber.

Some shooters don't understand the military Mauser extractor, will put a round in the chamber, and then try to close the bolt, and find they can't.

this Mauser extractor was picked up at the range, tossed on the ground behind the firing line.





We all puzzled about what could have caused this, and I think the best explanation is that the rifle had a military extractor, one that would not snap over the rim or a round in the chamber. The shooter just beat the bolt handle down until the extractor hook broke off the extractor body. As you can see the extractor is bowed. And, once the hook had broken, probably just bent the back of the extractor pulling the extractor body off the bolt.


The pre 64 is a controlled round feed, but it was designed so a round could be put into the chamber, and the bolt closed over it.



You can see that the extractor is heavily beveled, however, I recommend always feeding from the magazine. If you force the extractor to snap over the rim, in time, the extractor will break.

This is a continuing problem with the early "pseudo" controlled round feed Ruger M77's.

You would never have known it from the advertising of the age, but when these rifles were introduced on the market, the claw extractor was only there to give the rifle the appearance of a classic Mauser action. At the time, I remember the chorus of gunwriters singing the praises of the "Mauser" like extractor, how wonderful, how perfect!



This is a push feed extractor, this is not a controlled round feed extractor. And there is nothing you can do to make it a controlled round feed. This extractor snaps over the rim, and the real problem is, in time the extractor will fatigue fail, (break), and then you are up the river without a paddle. You can look, but these extractors are out of production, and out of stock. When one of these breaks, your rifle is inoperative.

Before there was such things as detachable magazines, it was best policy to push rounds into the magazine. Now with these single stack, or double feed, single stack magazines, you have to remove the magazine in order to feed a round.





that three round magazine has sharp edges and cuts my fingers. I don't like it. However it is there so the manufacturer can use one receiver for a "family" of cartridges. Older cartridges had a lot of taper, but the modern crop are very straight sided. Taper is good for reliable feed and extraction. Taper is more tolerance of alignment issues with the magazine, cartridge, and action. That is one reason, I believe, the older military rounds were almost dart like in shape. For 1888's manufacturing technology, highly tapered rounds would feed, given the file to fit technology of the times. And, (and this is very important) taper allows smooth feeding. Abrupt shoulders will cause feeding issues as the things rebound off magazine and receiver surfaces. Moderns want as much powder in the case, so cases have become cylindrical, and abrupt shoulders are better for consistent ignition. Older cartridges would go bang, but the velocity spreads with their shallow shoulders were higher. Shooters today are looking for bench rest accuracy, and are willing to trade off function reliability, and live with single stack, finicky magazines, to get this.

Incidentally, the extractor;s primary function is to hold the round against the bolt face. If the round falls off the bolt face, you will have a jam. If the round is not held firmly against the side of the bolt face, it won't eject reliably. A round should fall out of the chamber after firing, if your rounds stick, you are creating future problems for your rifle. If you insist on loading your cartridges so hot that the cartridge sticks to the chamber, requiring the extractor to pull the case out of the chamber, that thin, extractor hook will break some day. I busted a M1903 extractor by putting a round in front of the extractor. It was designed to be fed from the magazine and to be loaded as a single shot.

here the magazine cutoff is turned to "off", so the rifle will not feed rounds from the magazine



Considering many M1903 extractors are 80 to 100 years old, it might make sense to only feed from the magazine.

If you always feed a round from the magazine of a controlled round feed action, and don't load your rounds to the point they stick in the chamber, a controlled round feed extractor will last longer than a push feed extractor.

A push feed extractor will wear, luckily most of them are cheap and easy to replace, depending on the type. I have had one Garand extractor break, luckily the action jammed and not all the springs and parts were ejected. It can get expensive to replace all that stuff. Everyone who shoots an AR15 enough will wear out an extractor. I even bought the tool, I think I replaced one or two, been awhile. The push feed M70 has a bunch of different extractor blades, I met a guy who carried a small box of them. He was a match director, carried them to help competition shooters when their push feed M70's went down due to worn extractors. And, I helped a shooter one day replace his push feed extractor, on the firing line. It was easy. Wish I knew what extractor blades were required for which bolt faces and cartridges. The M70 extractor is easy to replace. The M700 is not.



Something to know about the M700 extractor, keep the space under the extractor clean, or you will break it. And, super important, when you load cartridges so hot the case head expands, you will break the extractor, as it gets crushed between the case and bolt nose. So, don't load hot.

I do think the M700 is a fantastic design, it protects negligent re loaders, by sealing the breech in over pressure conditions.



No one admits to doing stuff like this. If it were not for guys like Randall, you would never know this stuff happens.








I prefer the controlled round feed for one particular reason: you can ease the bolt open, and not have the case eject itself forward of the firing line. This is so frustrating at CMP Talladega, all those shooter banging away, the concrete forward of the benches is sloped downwards, rounds ejected will inevitably roll in front of the red line. I am sure this is not the only range where brass kicked forward becomes a problem to retrieve.

Push feed design have become the dominate extractor due to cost considerations. It is easier and cheaper to make a rifle with a push feed extractor. Gun designs have been cheaper, less durable, because the customer is extremely price sensitive. (how many threads have you read that started with best cheapest?) And, because the customer, is not shooting his weapon enough to wear anything out. Industry understands its customers and builds the things they will buy.

 

[troy fairweather]

In many ways, all the bolt action rifles we know today are close copies of the Mauser. The Remington 700 "3 rings of steel" as you refer to above is an innovation originally started on the Remington 721/722 series. Whether it is a significant improvement or not is subject to debate. The same can be said for the push feed innovation as we are doing right this second.

The history of sporting bolt action rifles start with the Mauser. The 1903 Springfield, of which many sporting rifles were made from, and later on the 1917 Enfield were controlled round feed. The 1903 was even too close of a copy of the Mauser and patent infringement royalties were awarded to Mauser. The Winchester Model 54, the precursor to the Model 70, is said to be based directly off of Mauser commercial actions.

The Remington Model 30 originally used modified 1917 actions. This eventually evolved to the Model 720 which is very similar to the Model 30 and then the 721/722s. The 721/722s were much closer in design to the 700 with the extractor in the recessed bolt face and plunger ejector. Two features very common to early push feeds. Of course the design was adopted because of cost cutting measures and took advantage of the then modern post WW2 manufacturing techniques. Savage did the same with their 110 series in 1958 whereas Remington was making the 721s in 1948.

Heck even the push feeds copied mausers lol.

 

[Flatbush Harry]

I never had a fail with my push-feed or CRF rifles. My fave hunting rifles are CRF (Win M70s, Ruger 77 African) and, while a bit less accurate than my Rems, are plenty accurate enough for hunting. My CRFs are all 1 MOA 3-shot rifles. That's more than good enough for any hunting I've ever done or will do.

Harry

 

[Flatbush Harry]

I don't have a bolt face picture of my Mauser M71-84, but all the old Mauser actions were push feed.

View attachment 1000137

That is till the 1893-94 actions were Mauser made the actions controlled feed to prevent double feeding. The military extractor was designed to feed from the magazine only! The true Mauser military extractor is not beveled at the bottom, such as the commercial M98 extractors, there is a slight rounding at the bottom of the extractor to allow the extractor to snap over a cartridge rim

View attachment 1000138

Ruger removed a lot of material so the extractor would snap over a round in the chamber

View attachment 1000139


I think this is the magazine only feed, military Mauser extractor

View attachment 1000140

I don't have many feed from the magazine only extractors, because I have had issues, during rapid fire, where the round popped out in front of the bolt face, and I could not close the bolt. This will cause an alibi in competition, as I could not pluck the round out of the chamber with a fingernail. I had to break position, bang the rifle butt on the ground, to extract the round. What I have done with feed from the magazine only extractors, is bevel/round the bottom with a dremel tool till the bolt closes on a round in the chamber.

Some shooters don't understand the military Mauser extractor, will put a round in the chamber, and then try to close the bolt, and find they can't.

this Mauser extractor was picked up at the range, tossed on the ground behind the firing line.

View attachment 1000141

View attachment 1000142

We all puzzled about what could have caused this, and I think the best explanation is that the rifle had a military extractor, one that would not snap over the rim or a round in the chamber. The shooter just beat the bolt handle down until the extractor hook broke off the extractor body. As you can see the extractor is bowed. And, once the hook had broken, probably just bent the back of the extractor pulling the extractor body off the bolt.


The pre 64 is a controlled round feed, but it was designed so a round could be put into the chamber, and the bolt closed over it.

View attachment 1000143

You can see that the extractor is heavily beveled, however, I recommend always feeding from the magazine. If you force the extractor to snap over the rim, in time, the extractor will break.

This is a continuing problem with the early "pseudo" controlled round feed Ruger M77's.

You would never have known it from the advertising of the age, but when these rifles were introduced on the market, the claw extractor was only there to give the rifle the appearance of a classic Mauser action. At the time, I remember the chorus of gunwriters singing the praises of the "Mauser" like extractor, how wonderful, how perfect!

View attachment 1000144

This is a push feed extractor, this is not a controlled round feed extractor. And there is nothing you can do to make it a controlled round feed. This extractor snaps over the rim, and the real problem is, in time the extractor will fatigue fail, (break), and then you are up the river without a paddle. You can look, but these extractors are out of production, and out of stock. When one of these breaks, your rifle is inoperative.

Before there was such things as detachable magazines, it was best policy to push rounds into the magazine. Now with these single stack, or double feed, single stack magazines, you have to remove the magazine in order to feed a round.

View attachment 1000145

View attachment 1000146

that three round magazine has sharp edges and cuts my fingers. I don't like it. However it is there so the manufacturer can use one receiver for a "family" of cartridges. Older cartridges had a lot of taper, but the modern crop are very straight sided. Taper is good for reliable feed and extraction. Taper is more tolerance of alignment issues with the magazine, cartridge, and action. That is one reason, I believe, the older military rounds were almost dart like in shape. For 1888's manufacturing technology, highly tapered rounds would feed, given the file to fit technology of the times. And, (and this is very important) taper allows smooth feeding. Abrupt shoulders will cause feeding issues as the things rebound off magazine and receiver surfaces. Moderns want as much powder in the case, so cases have become cylindrical, and abrupt shoulders are better for consistent ignition. Older cartridges would go bang, but the velocity spreads with their shallow shoulders were higher. Shooters today are looking for bench rest accuracy, and are willing to trade off function reliability, and live with single stack, finicky magazines, to get this.

Incidentally, the extractor;s primary function is to hold the round against the bolt face. If the round falls off the bolt face, you will have a jam. If the round is not held firmly against the side of the bolt face, it won't eject reliably. A round should fall out of the chamber after firing, if your rounds stick, you are creating future problems for your rifle. If you insist on loading your cartridges so hot that the cartridge sticks to the chamber, requiring the extractor to pull the case out of the chamber, that thin, extractor hook will break some day. I busted a M1903 extractor by putting a round in front of the extractor. It was designed to be fed from the magazine and to be loaded as a single shot.

here the magazine cutoff is turned to "off", so the rifle will not feed rounds from the magazine

View attachment 1000167

Considering many M1903 extractors are 80 to 100 years old, it might make sense to only feed from the magazine.

If you always feed a round from the magazine of a controlled round feed action, and don't load your rounds to the point they stick in the chamber, a controlled round feed extractor will last longer than a push feed extractor.

A push feed extractor will wear, luckily most of them are cheap and easy to replace, depending on the type. I have had one Garand extractor break, luckily the action jammed and not all the springs and parts were ejected. It can get expensive to replace all that stuff. Everyone who shoots an AR15 enough will wear out an extractor. I even bought the tool, I think I replaced one or two, been awhile. The push feed M70 has a bunch of different extractor blades, I met a guy who carried a small box of them. He was a match director, carried them to help competition shooters when their push feed M70's went down due to worn extractors. And, I helped a shooter one day replace his push feed extractor, on the firing line. It was easy. Wish I knew what extractor blades were required for which bolt faces and cartridges. The M70 extractor is easy to replace. The M700 is not.

View attachment 1000147

Something to know about the M700 extractor, keep the space under the extractor clean, or you will break it. And, super important, when you load cartridges so hot the case head expands, you will break the extractor, as it gets crushed between the case and bolt nose. So, don't load hot.

I do think the M700 is a fantastic design, it protects negligent re loaders, by sealing the breech in over pressure conditions.

View attachment 1000148

No one admits to doing stuff like this. If it were not for guys like Randall, you would never know this stuff happens.

View attachment 1000149

View attachment 1000150

View attachment 1000151


I prefer the controlled round feed for one particular reason: you can ease the bolt open, and not have the case eject itself forward of the firing line. This is so frustrating at CMP Talladega, all those shooter banging away, the concrete forward of the benches is sloped downwards, rounds ejected will inevitably roll in front of the red line. I am sure this is not the only range where brass kicked forward becomes a problem to retrieve.

Push feed design have become the dominate extractor due to cost considerations. It is easier and cheaper to make a rifle with a push feed extractor. Gun designs have been cheaper, less durable, because the customer is extremely price sensitive. (how many threads have you read that started with best cheapest?) And, because the customer, is not shooting his weapon enough to wear anything out. Industry understands its customers and builds the things they will buy.

Really good post. Thanks.

Harry

 

[JCooperfan1911]

CRF with a massive claw extractor, Mauser action, has been THE standard for dangerous game rifles in Africa for over 100 years. When hunters lives are literally on the line, when they are about to “see the elephant”, they choose CRF. They do not choose push feed.

They ARE SUPERIOR in terms of pure reliability, cycling, and feeding. There is no contest with the push feed system which was designed to be one thing and one thing only:

CHEAP.

With all that being said, for an average deer Hunter or target shooting, push feed guns can work just fine. But claiming they are superior to proper CRF is ludicrous IMHO.

 

[Seamaster31]

All of the bolt action rifles that I now use when hunting in Africa (not the shooting farms of SA) are crf. The main reason for this is that the PH's (esp. the German speaking fellows) grew up with crf actions and are a bit snobby about it. My first trip I took a Remington 700 as a light rifle that worked great and was very accurate. I overheard a couple of the PH's sitting at the fire late at night (with the whiskey) saying that they did not like American pf rifles. They opined that the American M70 was good enough for a "cheap" rifle as it was a copy of a good Mauser, and all other American rifles were poorly made junk. These fellows knew their business (finding game) but neither of them knew much about rifles. As an example of their rifle knowledge they told me that a 280 was much too light for medium game and that a 7x64 (it's European ballistic twin) was vastly better.
It is easier to simply carry a crf rifle than have to bite my lip when the silly talk starts.

 

[Dale Alan]

It is easier to simply carry a crf rifle than have to bite my lip when the silly talk starts.

Well said, "silly talk" is just what it is in reality .

 

[Slamfire]

All of the bolt action rifles that I now use when hunting in Africa (not the shooting farms of SA) are crf. The main reason for this is that the PH's (esp. the German speaking fellows) grew up with crf actions and are a bit snobby about it. My first trip I took a Remington 700 as a light rifle that worked great and was very accurate. I overheard a couple of the PH's sitting at the fire late at night (with the whiskey) saying that they did not like American pf rifles. They opined that the American M70 was good enough for a "cheap" rifle as it was a copy of a good Mauser, and all other American rifles were poorly made junk. These fellows knew their business (finding game) but neither of them knew much about rifles.

What you found is, they like what they have, and what they don't have, they are suspicious about. Germans believe that German designs, German manufacturers, produce the best, and everyone and everything else can't compare.

Welcome to tribalism. Every tribe can find reasons why they are better than the other ones.

I highly respect the M98 Mauser action, when I was able to buy a Chinese made Dumoulin action, I purchased it. A modern German made M98 action is in the thousands. This was less.



The Chinese cut the inner coller, just as FN did (which I consider a bad thing)





had it made into a rifle



It goes bang. So do my M70's and M700's. I do think the M98 Mauser is the best overall action for a military rifle and a hunting rifle, Mauser put so many safety features in the thing and the M98 is easy to field strip and clean. Great design. I also think the Arisaka is a great design, too bad that was not made as a commercial model. Both are too expensive to build, and everything keeps on getting cheaper. But that is the market.

 

[SwampWolf]

As an example of their rifle knowledge they told me that a 280 was much too light for medium game and that a 7x64 (it's European ballistic twin) was vastly better.

I have one (a 7x64 Brenneke chambered in a Ruger MKII rifle) and can attest that it really is vastly superior to the .280 wannabe. But, seriously, I only wish I could use .280 ammunition in my rifle; the two cartridges appear to be twins (and one of them is evil ).

 

[nettlle]

To me a controlled feed is l

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.

Both push feeds ad CRF feed well.

 

[Llama Bob]

There is no contest with the push feed system which was designed to be one thing and one thing only:

CHEAP.

I think this is the crux of the matter. If you look at the changes between the model 700 and the rifles that came before, I can see only one that is arguably beneficial to the shooter: decreased lock time. Even that comes at the expense of less reliable ignition in extreme circumstances, but it does at least help the shooter.

The rest - push feed, a round action that twists in the stock like a noodle, no lug on the action, the two position non-locking safety, plunger eject, two piece bolts, the walker trigger etc. - were all worse from the shooter's perspective. But they were cheaper to manufacture. The 700 was and remains a cost cutting action, first last and only. But Remington marketing did a remarkable job of selling their cost cutting action as a premium action. And that perception persists to this day.. Even the negligent nature of the Walker trigger wasn't enough to convince the diehards that they'd been taken. Honestly it's hard to imagine a more successful marketing deception. And here we are.

 

[taliv]

what i find interesting is that with the comments above, you'd think the CRF actions would dominate in the PRS/NRL. but in the crucible of the practical field/sniper style matches, where shooters encounter plenty of mud, dust, etc, and have relatively higher round counts and faster time limits, requiring fast bolt cycling, with no chance for alibis, the CRF actions are quite popular in the bottom half of the field.

mausingfields, gen3 bighorns, and several other modern CRF custom actions get a lot of love on forums. gunsmiths do a ton of builds on them.

 

[Llama Bob]

I think Remington got very lucky that the M24 and M40 were adopted in an era when there were no mass produced CRF rifles being made in the US to compete with them. It's easy to mistake "the thing Army procurement buys" for "the best thing" when in general it is the minimally acceptable thing. And from there momentum kicks in.

 

[High Plains]

I think Remington got very lucky that the M24 and M40 were adopted in an era when there were no mass produced CRF rifles being made in the US to compete with them. It's easy to mistake "the thing Army procurement buys" for "the best thing" when in general it is the minimally acceptable thing. And from there momentum kicks in.

Yes, I think they got a bit lucky too.
We had a M24 in the ‘stan and it was an outstanding rifle. Due to a lot of use it had one the smoothest bolts I used. No one ever complained about how that particular M24 performed.

 

[herrwalther]

I consider the controlled feed rifles to be more classy and refined compared to push feed. I have used both and both work as fine as intended. All my rifles have been push fed, but a fine example of controlled feed is one of my grail guns. Such as a Winchester 70 made before 1964.

 

[cdb1]

Like most of us I’ve never been in a life or death situation where the type of action mattered. I do prefer CRF strictly for the history of it and the cachet. I also own only one CRF rifle, my other bolt actions are PF. The only reason is price. If PF rifles and CRF rifles cost the same I’d own nothing but CRF.

 

[MarshallDodge]

CRF with a massive claw extractor, Mauser action, has been THE standard for dangerous game rifles in Africa for over 100 years. When hunters lives are literally on the line, when they are about to “see the elephant”, they choose CRF. They do not choose push feed.

They ARE SUPERIOR in terms of pure reliability, cycling, and feeding. There is no contest with the push feed system which was designed to be one thing and one thing only:

CHEAP.

With all that being said, for an average deer Hunter or target shooting, push feed guns can work just fine. But claiming they are superior to proper CRF is ludicrous IMHO.

I am not seeing anyone in this thread claim that PF is better than CRF but when this subject comes up, it almost always gets some feathers ruffled and people get defensive.

Yes, the push feed system is cheaper to manufacture but it is also simpler. There is a lot to be said about that as it has less to fail.

To the thread's original question-

Personally, as an owner of a Winchester 70, Springfield 03-A3, and several Remington and clone 700 actions, I have had issues with all of them feeding. Most of the issues were magazine/ammo related which magnifies the fact that choosing one over the other doesn't guarantee a good working system.

It's not a bolt action, but the most reliable rifle that I own is an AR15. This is entirely based on a round count to failures ratio, but I am always impressed with how mine will run in all kinds of conditions, hot and cold, and all kinds of different positions, yet still keeps feeding. Again, a good magazine system is crucial to all of this.

 

[Kano383]

All of the bolt action rifles that I now use when hunting in Africa (not the shooting farms of SA) are crf. The main reason for this is that the PH's (esp. the German speaking fellows) grew up with crf actions and are a bit snobby about it. My first trip I took a Remington 700 as a light rifle that worked great and was very accurate. I overheard a couple of the PH's sitting at the fire late at night (with the whiskey) saying that they did not like American pf rifles. They opined that the American M70 was good enough for a "cheap" rifle as it was a copy of a good Mauser, and all other American rifles were poorly made junk. These fellows knew their business (finding game) but neither of them knew much about rifles. As an example of their rifle knowledge they told me that a 280 was much too light for medium game and that a 7x64 (it's European ballistic twin) was vastly better.
It is easier to simply carry a crf rifle than have to bite my lip when the silly talk starts.

Many PHs don't know much about rifles, I do agree - and that's one thing that really surprised me.

But one thing they know, is what works and what doesn't, over the years and in the bush. I do agree with their assessment of the M70: if not taken care of properly, they do give up the ghost over the years.

I personally had to inspect and select heaps of rifles bound for destruction, hundreds of firearms covering over a century of use in Africa. Out of these, I had some 40 to 50 CZ/Brno in various calibers and models, and maybe 30 Win 70 both pre- and post-64. These were rifles that had been retrieved from civilians, many had been used extensively by local villagers. The rifles had been used and abused beyond what the ordinary Western shooter can imagine.

Whereas, unless rusted to perdition because of poor storage, the vast majority of the CZ/Brno were still serviceable, NOT ONE of the Winchester had survived in firing conditions.

Getting to the CRF... Just like some have already said in posts above, the weakness of PF extractors is neglect. Let the grime accumulate, and you soon have a problem. CRF are much more rugged when it comes to African bush hunting - I'm talking of 100 or 150 days of hunting, every year, out there in the bush.

 

[mcb]

I have been killed by angry critters twice due to CF letting me down and only once due to PF letting me down. Thus I am only using PF until I get killed again so I can say they both have let me down the same amount.

If you're really worried about a reliable follow up shot you carry a double rifle and bring along a trusted buddy or two with double rifles.

 

[taliv]

I am not seeing anyone in this thread claim that PF is better than CRF but when this subject comes up, it almost always gets some feathers ruffled and people get defensive.

I’m not arguing pf is better. But Given a choice of actions with all other things being equal, and equal cost, I’d choose pf over CRF

I think CRF is an answer to a problem that doesn’t exist and it does complicate a lot of things.

 

[Slamfire]

Personally, as an owner of a Winchester 70, Springfield 03-A3, and several Remington and clone 700 actions, I have had issues with all of them feeding. Most of the issues were magazine/ammo related which magnifies the fact that choosing one over the other doesn't guarantee a good working system.

Feed must be carefully engineered and manufactured since misalignment between the chamber and cartridge during feed will cause a jam. Anyone can turn the receiver of an older rifle up and see feed lips machined into the receiver.



My pre 64's have machined feed lips, and so do my M1a receivers. These feed lips are fixed, so they don't move around, and being machined steel, they are very sturdy, not liable to spread as cheap aluminum M16 magazines do over time. It should be noted that the Russians built very sturdy and expensive sheet metal magazines for the AK47, They were willing to spend the money to ensure that the entire feed system of their battle rifles was well thought out, (from cartridge, feed angles, magazine tolerances, and bolt face) and constructed that system for maximum reliability. Anyone who knows anything about AR15's/M16's/M4's knows the cheap "disposable" magazines that the Army wanted have been a continual source of unreliability and jams.It is hard to believe that the post WW2 Infantry school wanted stripper clips. The letter I read, the Infantry school said magazines were expensive, magazines were heavy, they wanted cheap, simple, clips. And their influence was such, the M14 rifle was given a stripper clip slot on top, and early documentation calls the magazine "semi detachable".



Stoner gave the Army what it wanted, cheap, light, "disposable" magazines. Cheap magazines became unreliable magazines, and it was not until polymer technology advanced 45 years later, that reliable and lightweight M16 magazines became a possibility.

Machined feed lips are very reliable with one cartridge type or shape. Modern manufacturer's have cheapened the feed system in bolt rifles, so their receivers can use a "family" of cartridges. Hence, feed lips have disappeared.

No feed lips in the redesigned FN PBR M70 action



instead the action relies on cheap, stamp metal boxes to align cartridges. These boxes are finicky and move around in the stock. Many a highpower competitor played and tweaked their magazine boxes so rounds would stay in the magazine during rapid fire. I have a M70 Classic I used, had the receiver cut for stripper clips, and if I pushed rounds in too fast during the rapid fire reload, the action would puke them out once I lifted my thumb. More than once I lost an alibi because the top round rolled off and went under my arm, something I did not see shooting prone rapid fire. You don't get an alibi for not loading enough ammunition in your magazine and only finding out, after you are done shooting. That did not happen in my pre 64 M70 in 308. That rifle started as a 30-06 NM receiver, I was able to get the short action conversion parts, the thing fed and extracted like a champ.

Modern rifles are more or less built around over priced, but highly profitable, double feed, single stack magazines, or just single stack magazines. And the current crop of straight cartridges are finicky about alignment. This shooter has to play around with followers to get his 450 Bushmaster to feed reliably, and that single stack magazine is limited to five rounds, because anything over five rounds, tends to jam within the magazine. Go try to find a 10 round magazine for one of these rifles, not some old ad, but someone selling a ten rounder now.





I do believe the CRF cult within the shooting community was created by marketing bureaus as a misdirection from cheap feed systems. Reliable feed is more than just an extractor, and reliable extraction is more than just an extractor too. The whole feed and extraction is a system, but by whooping up meaningless paint jobs and vehicle grill configurations, manufacturer's educate you not to look under hood. They are not educating you on what not to buy. As Noam Chomsky said "the purpose of advertising is to create ill informed consumers who make irrational choices"

 

[rbernie]

but in the crucible of the practical field/sniper style matches, where shooters encounter plenty of mud, dust, etc, and have relatively higher round counts and faster time limits, requiring fast bolt cycling, with no chance for alibis, the CRF actions are quite popular in the bottom half of the field.

mausingfields, gen3 bighorns, and several other modern CRF custom actions get a lot of love on forums. gunsmiths do a ton of builds on them.

I've read enough folk complaining how custom action X, Y, or Z won't feed or extract or eject reliably all the time under stress to believe that PRS action choice isn't based on PF or CRF as much as it's based on ejection port and bolt handle locations, integral rails, and Rem700 stock / trigger compatibility, and then folk tune the hell out of the action / mags to get it reliable under shooting stress.

It is nice to see custom CRF being offered and used and refined.