Push or Controlled round feed?

[Llama Bob]

Army procurement is certainly hit or miss and results in a minimum acceptable system according to the specification they write. That said if the Army wanted their sniper rifle to have CRF or a bolt lock they would have written the requirement in as part of those minimally acceptable specification at the time the contract was opened for bid proposals. Clearly CRF and bolt lock has not been a desired feature or it would have been included in the system specification.

You're missing the fact that frequently the spec is written afterwards to justify the minimally acceptable decision.

It's pretty hard to argue that something like an FN SPR isn't a better sniper rifle than any off the shelf M700.

 

[Robert]

From what do you shoot to Army procurement... Yup this one got way off in the weeds...

 

[H&Hhunter]

The PF vs CRF feeding issue is not about hanging upside down while running the bolt. It about double feeding and jamming rounds under stress. The CRF action prohibits that issue and that is why CRF actions were used on almost all bolt action battle rifles in the day. It’s also a dang good reason to have one on a DG bolt gun. Then there is the extraction power of a Mauser style action issue that is completely lacking in a M-700. Plain and simple between the non locking bolt, the weak extractor and the 8 lb lawyer trigger. Remington has taken a very good action and made it totally undesirable for me.

Having a nonlocking bolt is a 100% deal killer for me. I’ve owned one rifle without a locking bolt and it open during a rough hike and filled the magazine and chamber with dirt and pine needles and other deritous, I won’t ever own another. There are some push feed rifles that I like very much and use them but Remington is off the list.