Rifle actions.

[saltydog452]

I'v seen the terms 'push feed' and 'controlled feed' and am curious to the distinction between the two. Why would one be preferable to the other?

Why would, say a Dakota action be more pricey than a Sako, or Remington, Savage, Mdl 70, Ruger, etc.?

Just what makes one action any better, or worse, than another?

Thanks,

salty.

P.S...Mods, maybe this thread belongs in the 'Gunsmithing' Forum. If you think this isn't the right place for this post, please feel free to move it to where it might be more appropriate.

 

[MrMurphy]

From what I remember, controlled feed, the bolt claw/extractor etc grabs the rim of the round and holds it the whole way through the loading process. Push feed, the bolt picks up the round from the magazine and just pushes it forward into the chamber. For use in nasty situations, odd angles (laying on your side or something) such as in some hunting situations, controlled feed has more fans as it's harder to screw up.

I'm no gunsmith or bolt action expert, but that's what I remember.

Dakota is a custom maker..... they don't crank out four billion rifles a year, they take more time building each individual action. Like buying a Bentley instead of a Cadillac. Both are very nice cars, but the Bentley is MUCH more expensive for a reason.

 

[Bwana John]

If you stop a push round feed bolt as it is chambering a cartridge 3/4 of the way into the chamber, then retract the bolt and try to chamber another round, you get a jam with the first round still in the chamber.

With a control round feed the extractor holds the rim of the cartridge captive as soon as the cartridge leaves the feed lips, thus if the bolt is retracted without compleatly chambering the round the round is retracted with the cartridge and is extracted.

Controled round feed should always be loaded from the magezine, you should not drop a round into the chamber and close the bolt, as the extractor is not ment to snap over the rim or the cartridge, it is ment to be fed up into it.

 

[Mulliga]

Why would one be preferable to the other?

Not quite sure of this, but the short version: push-feed rifles are supposed to be slightly more accurate and better in catastrophic failures. Controlled round feed is more reliable and can take more punishment.

Long discussion here:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=13813

Short answer: There's not too much difference.

 

[Jim K]

Hi, Bwana John and guys,

You can get something a lot worse than a jam. It is no coincidence that Mauser and other designers who tried push feed dropped it with the advent of metal jacket bullets. The major advantage of push feed rifles like the Remington 700 is their incredible strength, and that is why they are made. But...

With a push feed rifle, if you push a round into the chamber and then retract the bolt and push it forward again, you will shove the bullet of the next round right up against the base of the chambered round. And what is in the base of a cartridge? If you answered "the primer", you are right.

It only takes a bit of a mistake in the rifle or in the manipulation to shove the point of a bullet right into the primer of the chambered round, and the result will be highly unpleasant.

Makers of push feed rifles ensure that the feed rails guide the round so the above danger is reduced. That is why altering a push feed rifle to a cartridge other than the original must be done with caution.

Jim

 

[Art Eatman]

JIm makes some good points, but once you've thought it through about cycling a push feed, it's no problem.

Most of my hunting rifles over the last thirty-five years have been push feed. It wasn't on purpose, particularly; it just never seemed to be a problem. Weatherby, Sako, Remington, etc...

Because the push-feed system fully encloses the head of the cartridge case, it's potentially safer for a reloader if he gets overly optimistic about power and powder.

Folks who hunt dangerous game and might have to reload while in rapid movement and/or awkward positions prefer the controlled feed. Less possibility of a round falling loose if one stumbles and falls while in a helluva herry to not get bitten, clawed or stomped.

Art

 

[knzn]

Fact if life #1.
When guys gather around a campfire, or a water fountain at work, or the bench by the cash register at the grocery store,(waiting for the wifes) they need stuff to argue about. So~~

The old push feed vs. control feed just makes sure there are options besides caliber vs. caliber, stainless vs. carbon, Bud vs. Coor, blonde vs. brunette etc.

 

[Jim K]

Hi, Art,

Suggestion. Try it. Chamber a round without closing the bolt, then operate the bolt slowly to pick up another round. Watch where that bullet point ends up.

I own three Remington 700's so I am not paranoid, but there is a potential problem waiting to happen if something is a little "off".

Jim

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
-------------------------------------------
Controled round feed should always be loaded from the magezine, you should not drop a round into the chamber and close the bolt, as the extractor is not ment to snap over the rim or the cartridge, it is ment to be fed up into it.
--------------------------------------------

Actually, many controlled round feed actions are meant to be loaded by dropping or sliding a round into the chamber.

The M1903 Springfield, for example, is basically a modified '98 Mauser and has controlled round feed It has a magazine cutoff, so the soldier could hold a full magazine in reserve and single-load the rifle in a long-range firefight. The extractor is beveled to snap outward, and then catch the extraction groove when the rifle is used as a single loader.

My pre-'64 Winchester Model 70 is also a controlled-round feed, and happily accepts rounds dropped into the chamber.

My M96 Swedish Mauser, on the other hand, lacks the beveled extractor, and must be loaded from the magazine.

The issue of push-feed being somehow "more accurate" is questionable. Some rifles (like the Remington 700) are pushfeed and have a great reputation for accuracy -- but they have a lot of things going for them besides the feeding configuration.

My controlled round feed rifles are on the average just a teeny bit more accurate than my push-feeders -- but the difference isn't statistically significant.

 

[cwdotson]

Is a Swedish Mauser M96 a "controlled feed?"

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Yes. The '96 Mauser (and the 93 and 94) are all controlled round feed.

 

[rbernie]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=163700

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=114260

 

[rockstar.esq]

The Mauser has a well deserved reputation for both reliability and accuracy. This is achieved by fitting a mechanism that requires things to feed perfectly. Now before anyone gets all a'twitter consider that the Mauser relies on the magazine sliding the cartridge rim under the extractor when the bolt is fully back. When this fits perfectly, it will feed easily and smoothly. When it's not so perfect, as in late war models the feeding gets much rougher. For what it's worth the repeated bit about how suceptible the push feed system is to bullet to primer jams are way overblown. Just because you can be stupid with a rifle doesn't make a design unsafe. Pump shotguns are tons easier to "Short stroke" yet people everyday manage to rack off shots reliably. In fact you could also chamber a .270 winchester in a 30-06 no matter what rifle we're talking about. Now to really throw a fly in the ointment, the Mosin Nagant is a push feed that has a magazine design which keeps the top round in the magazine in an interrupt position which prevents the jamming deal associated with the Remington/ Sako/ Weatherby's. One thing I think Sako got right was a "compromise" of sorts in that they use a larger than Remington 700 extractor which borrows from the Mauser in that there is more purchase of the cartridge rim should there be a case head separation. One sort of comonality of controlled round feeds is that the safety is located on the back of the bolt which can effect how you mount a scope whereas most push feeds (ironically the aforementioned Mosin Nagant excepted) have the safety to the side of the bolt way or on the tang where they don't interfere with optics. Now I know there are exceptions to every rule however my experience has been that the old "wing" type safety from the Mauser's are the only truly quiet safetys which is huge on a hunting rifle. In comparison, I've found the tang or side of boltway safetys to be consitently quieter across the board. Now that I've opened the door about their safety's I feel I should mention that I've not yet encountered a single safety design that accomodates a thumbhole stock without requiring the shooter to completely remove thier shooting hand from the stock turn it on or off.