While this subject has been beaten to death would'nt a CRF be better than Push feed?

[Beak50]

My Model 70 coned breech,Controlled Round feed 7RM, I cosider a better gun then push feed model's.Is it just me or does the extra machining and CRf pay of and not just on dangerous game.And is it just basically a Winchester vs Remiln game nowday's?That's why my fin-law want's to go to cooper for my son's first " own" Rifle.Also why did winchester do away with the coned breech?It makes no sense to me.

 

[rcmodel]

Also why did winchester do away with the coned breech?

Two reasons:
#1 Cost = Coned breach is more expensive to make.
#2 Safety = Less chamber support of the brass case head.


Which is better?
It depends.
If you were a solder falling into a shell hole, or a hunter thrown into a thorn bush by a Buffalo charge and might have to reload your rifle upside down?
CRF is way better.

For the rest of us, it probably makes no difference.
Except the PF breaching system is in general able to handle higher pressure safely.

rc

 

[Jim K]

Controlled feeding may be better when loading upside down, but that was not the original reason. Mauser actually started with what amounted to a push feed, but found that (then-new) pointed bullets created a problem more serious that a cartridge falling out. In a push feed rifle, if a round is chambered but the bolt not fully locked, the round will not be extracted when the bolt is operated again. Instead, the bullet of the next round will end up being driven into the base of the chambered round. If the bullet has a full metal jacket, is pointed, and happens to drive into the primer of the chambered round, very interesting things happen shortly thereafter.

Controlled round feeding (or more precisely controlled round extraction) prevents that kind of nasty surprise. Modern push feed rifles are generally sporters using soft point bullets, the shooter very rarely rapid fires, and the feed lips are controlled so that the cartridge point is guided away from the center of the chamber. But gunsmiths who alter those actions for cartridges with a differently shaped case should be aware of the last point and watch for a potential problem.

Jim

 

[ECVMatt]

As usual, RC is right on the money.

I like the idea of CRF, but in actual hunting I have not been let down by the PF. I have one Win M70 that is PF and another that is CRF, the PF is more accurate. This is not a real test of either action, but my friends with M70 PF's all tend to shoot better than my CRF.

 

[briansmithwins]

Why are semi-automatic rifles, which are all (that I can think of) push feed, reliable when fired at odd angles?

BSW

 

[StrawHat]

Remingtons, at least my 721 and 722, would feed and eject when held upside down. I was trying to justify getting a CRF and Pop asked how I knew the push feed wouldn't work.

 

[P.B.Walsh]

The violent action of semi-auto rifles stripping the rounds from the magazine, then high pressure gasses throwing the bolt back negates the need of CRF in a semi-aouto rifle.

Hope that helps.

 

[krinko]

My PF Winchester M70 in .375 H&H will feed upside down---I put the safety on half-mast and tried it just now.
So if I am thrown into the bush by a wounded jackrabbit, there should be no problem getting a second or third shot off.

Don't the CRF fanatics just figure the robust size of the Mauser Claw to be the reliability factor?
-----krinko

 

[wally]

The violent action of semi-auto rifles stripping the rounds from the magazine, then high pressure gasses throwing the bolt back negates the meed of CRF in a semi-aouto rifle.

Yes and the nasty "double feed" jams you get if a round fails to fully chamber and then not eject illustrates what you give up.

 

[jmr40]

Controlled feeding may be better when loading upside down,

A push feed works just as well upside down as CRF. Actually CRF offers zero advantages when it comes to feeding rounds into the rifle. It can be a huge advantage when it comes time to extract or eject rounds.

As long as either type is reasonably clean and in spec ammo is used no one will ever notice any difference. But if you are in a situation where your rifle absolutely must work, no excuses, even if it is filthy, with ammo coated in mud or dirt that needs to be fed into and out of a chamber. The CRF rifle will be much more likely to keep working. The MUCH larger extractor and blade ejector are bulletproof and will work when the smaller extractor and tiny spring loaded ejectors on a pushfeed have failed.

My rifles are about 50-50 between CRF and PF. None have ever failed me, and for the vast majority of my hunts I could care less. But if on a backpack hunt, or in dirty, dusty, muddy hunting conditions, or if hunting in remote locations I'll be taking a CRF rifle for that extra measure of reliability.

All things being equal I'd rather have the CRF. I may never need or use it's advantages, but there are no downsides to having a rifle that is CRF vs pushfeed.

 

[LoonWulf]

I have no use for them, and the generally higher cost isnt justifiable for ME. Other then that i do think the design is great, especially if you have a dangerous situation, in poor conditions, as has already been stated as the reason for the CRFs to exist.

 

[Slamfire]

The violent action of semi-auto rifles stripping the rounds from the magazine, then high pressure gasses throwing the bolt back negates the meed of CRF in a semi-aouto rifle.

I can't really disagree with this.

Did any of the early heavy machine guns use a version of controlled round feed? Like the Maxim or the Vickers.

Something like the roller bolt guns, these are delayed blowbacks. The extractor basically holds the case to the bolt face so the extractor can knock it off. The case is coming out of that chamber, like a cork out of the bottle, as long as those flutes are working.

That is why keeping those chamber flutes clean in important. Alowl dirt and what not to gum up the chamber flutes, the additional breech friction will stop the gun cycling.

 

[kaferhaus]

Every push feed rifle I've ever had would cycle in any position. That said, I own both. I prefer the push feed for high energy cartridges because they handle pressure a bit better. Other than that, the appeal of the particular rifle means more to me than whether or not it's push or controlled round feed.

I'd have no problem hunting lion or water buffalo with a push feed action rifle.

 

[jmr40]

and the generally higher cost isnt justifiable for ME.

Winchester, Ruger and Kimber are the only USA made CRF rifles at this time. Only the Kimber is more expensive than the Remington, the most popular PF rifle. And not by much if you compare comparable models.

Rugers are less expensive than comparable Savage rifles, one of the least expensive PF models.

Cost isn't an issue. Kimbers are more expensive because they are Kimbers, not because they are CRF.

I prefer the Winchesters and Kimbers over Remingtons just because I like Winchesters and Kimbers better and own both CRF and PF versions. The fact that I can get a CRF Winchester for less money than a PF Remington is just gravy.

 

[Art Eatman]

It seems to be commonly reported of firing some thousands of rounds between cleanings without problems or failures, for both designs. If indeed factual, that says to me that there is not enough difference between them to worry about.

 

[LoonWulf]

The only CRF rifles that come even close to in price to what most of the cheaper push feeds ive seen are the rugers, and they are still a hundred to couple hundred bucks more expensive.
Marlins XL7 could be had at 320ish a while back, the cheapest ruger on the rack was 549 if i remember correctly, and a wood stock Vanguard was 410 or 419.
Cheapest new Winchester ive seen are 750-900 and Kimbers start around 1k.
Now it could just be that the CRFs come with more options stock, but i believe the machining cost is also higher.