The old crf vs prf debate....

[Bas]

Has anyone actually found evidence concerning crf vs prf as relating to real world documentation in regard to reported arms malfunctions when hunting dangerous game ? I tried researching actual occurrences where both crf and prf were blamed as a reason for failure to stop an animal from concluding it's intent to exact revenge for what ever reason it had in mind.
I literally found nothing but that's just a reflection of my researching abilities. Does anyone have access to such records ? Theoretical discussion has merit but does there exist documented instances where crf or prf is proven to be more reliable in actual and stressful field conditions ?

Appreciate serious replies.
Thanks, Bob

 

[Rule 303]

I am of no help but agree it would be interesting, especially if the actual circumstances were recorded.

I would also throw Double Rifles into the mix as well.

 

[Bas]

I am of no help but agree it would be interesting, especially if the actual circumstances were recorded.

I would also throw Double Rifles into the mix as well.

Meaning ejectors vs extractors ?

 

[Rule 303]

Meaning ejectors vs extractors ?

Good point, but no, I meant Double V's Bolt

 

[IvW]

CRF, had seen issues in the field with PF actions. CRF all the way for a DG game back-up rifle, for a client I guess whatever floats your boat but for back up CRF or a double.

 

[BRICKBURN]

CRF, had seen issues in the field with PF actions. CRF all the way for a DG game back-up rifle, for a client I guess whatever floats your boat but for back up CRF or a double.

I know it has been debated endlessly. What is your experience?

 

[hgr2]

This is a very interesting topic for me and my comments are for M70 CRF actions only. The majority of my hunting rifles are M70 Controlled Round Feed actions and they make the most since to me. They positively control the round both in feeding from the magazine and extraction.

In a dangerous situation you have the ability to rapidly drop a round directly in the action and close the bolt snapping the extractor over the rim of the case like a PF.

This isn’t the best practice but could save your a$$. There is much debate over this feature even from those keyboard operators at Winchester. There are good reasons for the Winchester CRF actions popularity.

 

[Bas]

I know it has been debated endlessly. What is your experience?

As mentioned earlier, when reading about the differences and considering the mechanical aspects logic leans toward CRF. I've only owned close to 20 different centerfire rifles in my 64 years and the majority of the time a PRF was in my hands.
Having been a lifelong WV resident hasn't put me in a "dangerous game" mindset . Reading this website has caused me to ask the question where I previously didn't know there was a question to be asked. My only FTF issues came on two rifles and they were the Ruger 77 (and my brother-in-law's Ruger 77) and my Kimber Montana.........all 3 CRF.
These may have been side rail or magazine well issues. I really should find the problem with my Kimber, just haven't taken the time.
At any rate I would like to see what the more experienced have to say and to see if anyone knows of sources of statistics that relates to occurrences of mechanical failure that has lead to, or could have lead to "unfortunate / unfavorable endings."

 

[flatwater bill]

The only Ruger 77 I own are push feeds. They have the claw extractor, but they are true push feeds. I know that the later models (MkII and others) are CRF. Mine are not. The only failure to feed probs I have had on my older push feed Rugers are with cartridges "in the middle" ......257 Robts, 7x57 that are not true 2.5 inch cases, but are used in the long action. They can turn on you, like a politician. But then, I am not usually chased by an enraged muley. Good question..........................FW Bill

 

[Bas]

The only Ruger 77 I own are push feeds. They have the claw extractor, but they are true push feeds. I know that the later models (MkII and others) are CRF. Mine are not. The only failure to feed probs I have had on my older push feed Rugers are with cartridges "in the middle" ......257 Robts, 7x57 that are not true 2.5 inch cases, but are used in the long action. They can turn on you, like a politician. But then, I am not usually chased by an enraged muley. Good question..........................FW Bill

Thanks for your reply.
I'm obviously not that familiar with rifle differences but that's why I like using this website - a chance to learn. What does it take to qualify as a CRF ? Could you please explain the difference for me ?

Best to you, Bob

 

[Hank2211]

I'm not sure this will qualify as a serious reply, but I will give it a go anyway.

I call the crf vs, prf an example of the "Bose" effect.

I was on an airplane once where a fellow had Bose noise-reducing headphones. The man sitting next to him started talking about his headphones, which were Sennheiser. Mr. Sennheiser spent a good half hour boring Mr. Bose with how he decided on the Sennheiser's, he'd done a ton of research, had consulted audiophiles, had test run a bunch of pairs, and decided these Sennheiser's were the best. Mr. Bose smiled, and said nothing.

No one who owns Bose headphones seems to ever feel the need to justify their purchase. People who have other types (except maybe Beats, because that's a different demographic) always seem to feel they have to justify why they bought what they bought instead of Bose.

It's that way with crf and prf. You will never hear a person with a controlled feed action defending why he bought that action. But someone who bought a push feed action often seems to feel the need to defend their purchase. Why is that? Likely because intuitively, the controlled feed action just sounds like it should be better.

All my rifles are controlled feed. I feel no need to justify that to anyone.

 

[Bas]

I'm not sure this will qualify as a serious reply, but I will give it a go anyway.

I call the crf vs, prf an example of the "Bose" effect.

I was on an airplane once where a fellow had Bose noise-reducing headphones. The man sitting next to him started talking about his headphones, which were Sennheiser. Mr. Sennheiser spent a good half hour boring Mr. Bose with how he decided on the Sennheiser's, he'd done a ton of research, had consulted audiophiles, had test run a bunch of pairs, and decided these Sennheiser's were the best. Mr. Bose smiled, and said nothing.

No one who owns Bose headphones seems to ever feel the need to justify their purchase. People who have other types (except maybe Beats, because that's a different demographic) always seem to feel they have to justify why they bought what they bought instead of Bose.

It's that way with crf and prf. You will never hear a person with a controlled feed action defending why he bought that action. But someone who bought a push feed action often seems to feel the need to defend their purchase. Why is that? Likely because intuitively, the controlled feed action just sounds like it should be better.

All my rifles are controlled feed. I feel no need to justify that to anyone.

You're absolutely right. And my texts have been intended to educate myself. I think a lot of folks around here have long ago been inclined to the Remington 700.
That's changed a good bit in recent years. For a while CRF rifles didn't fill the local dealers shelves . I thought the Ruger 77 was CRF but one gentleman in this thread says it may not be. The current trend locally is the AR. I've mostly stuck to the bolt action but have taken a good many whitetails with the old Remington carbine in 308 Win. .
My main question was statistics of in- the- field failures related to both action types but so far it appears nobody can locate any ongoing documentation. Haven't seen any Model 70 since they brought back the claw extractor, but all the Mausers, Rigbys, Heyms etc. are out of financial reach of most hunters I know.

Thanks for your reply , Bob

 

[Clayton]

OK, not only a Dangerous Game situation, but in the event a poor Whitetail needs a second shot we owe it to him to deliver it as quickly as possible. It is our responsibility.

My CRF experiences has been around various M98 Mausers, 1903A3 Springfields, one 1917 Eddystone, several FN Brownings (Safari and Medallion grades) and M70 Winchesters. I've never had any one malfunction in any situation.
I've owned nearly as many PF actions. I do love the M700 for it's accuracy potential. My current .223 Varmint Special is frequently a one-hole target maker. However I can rely on multiple failures to feed with nearly each outing. Unless it's a really short trip. Yes, I can probably have that fixed, but why buy something knowing I have to fix it in the first place.

That being said, in a situation with something bent on leaving me as a puddle of protoplasm and mud, I want something I can depend on in any case. Sure, there's exceptions to every rule. But I really don't want to leave the chance to the whims of maybe being an exception. I can already relate to that and can tell you I do not feel that's the normal routine outcome of bad things.

All this is just my logic and $0.02 worth of time.

 

[Bas]

OK, not only a Dangerous Game situation, but in the event a poor Whitetail needs a second shot we owe it to him to deliver it as quickly as possible. It is our responsibility.

My CRF experiences has been around various M98 Mausers, 1903A3 Springfields, one 1917 Eddystone, several FN Brownings (Safari and Medallion grades) and M70 Winchesters. I've never had any one malfunction in any situation.
I've owned nearly as many PF actions. I do love the M700 for it's accuracy potential. My current .223 Varmint Special is frequently a one-hole target maker. However I can rely on multiple failures to feed with nearly each outing. Unless it's a really short trip. Yes, I can probably have that fixed, but why buy something knowing I have to fix it in the first place.

That being said, in a situation with something bent on leaving me as a puddle of protoplasm and mud, I want something I can depend on in any case. Sure, there's exceptions to every rule. But I really don't want to leave the chance to the whims of maybe being an exception. I can already relate to that and can tell you I do not feel that's the normal routine outcome of bad things.

All this is just my logic and $0.02 worth of time.

Thanks for your reply, Bob

 

[1dirthawker]

i had a 416 remington, in a remington mod 700 rifle = push feed. i never had a chance to shoot anything with it, it was stolen in 2003 with all my other guns. that was "pre-gun safe" days. anyway, my problem with that rifle was the extractor (small bit of metal in the bolt face) failed to catch the cartridge rim after about a box and a half of rounds through it and i started failing to extract.

another problem i had with the push feed (particularly that rifle) is that the ejector button can get corroded and stuck in its position and do a poor job of ejecting the round. not something i have happen with a mechanical ejector.

luckily, i found out of the rifle range, not dealing with a bear or buffalo. my only failure of pf rifle, no failures of crf.

 

[Bas]

i had a 416 remington, in a remington mod 700 rifle = push feed. i never had a chance to shoot anything with it, it was stolen in 2003 with all my other guns. that was "pre-gun safe" days. anyway, my problem with that rifle was the extractor (small bit of metal in the bolt face) failed to catch the cartridge rim after about a box and a half of rounds through it and i started failing to extract.

another problem i had with the push feed (particularly that rifle) is that the ejector button can get corroded and stuck in its position and do a poor job of ejecting the round. not something i have happen with a mechanical ejector.

luckily, i found out of the rifle range, not dealing with a bear or buffalo. my only failure of pf rifle, no failures of crf.

I appreciate your information , glad you weren't endangered.
I have an 1898 30-40 Krag that was my father's. Is it considered CRF ?
Thanks, Bob

 

[1dirthawker]

don't know that rifle. somebody here does tho!

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

Longtime Field & Stream gun writer Dave Petzal made a short video on this subject:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/blog...deo-controlled-feed-vs-push-feed-bolt-actions

 

[Rule 303]

I

I'm not sure this will qualify as a serious reply, but I will give it a go anyway.

I call the crf vs, prf an example of the "Bose" effect.

I was on an airplane once where a fellow had Bose noise-reducing headphones. The man sitting next to him started talking about his headphones, which were Sennheiser. Mr. Sennheiser spent a good half hour boring Mr. Bose with how he decided on the Sennheiser's, he'd done a ton of research, had consulted audiophiles, had test run a bunch of pairs, and decided these Sennheiser's were the best. Mr. Bose smiled, and said nothing.

No one who owns Bose headphones seems to ever feel the need to justify their purchase. People who have other types (except maybe Beats, because that's a different demographic) always seem to feel they have to justify why they bought what they bought instead of Bose.

It's that way with crf and prf. You will never hear a person with a controlled feed action defending why he bought that action. But someone who bought a push feed action often seems to feel the need to defend their purchase. Why is that? Likely because intuitively, the controlled feed action just sounds like it should be better.

All my rifles are controlled feed. I feel no need to justify that to anyone.

In my experience that is bull. Most CRF types I know can't wait to justify why CRF.

I have said it before and will keep saying it till the day I die CRF are fallible just like any other feed just less so. After my early experience in the shooting game with CRF I would not spit on them for 20 years. Several friends had CRF rifles and they stuffed up more than the first two rifles I bought, a Win 94 and Rem 700. Along with others I saw at the range there were fail to feed, fail to extract and double feeds. Took awhile but I latter learnt most of these were due to poor time of the bolt/extractor and mag problems.

I have had an M17 where the extractor would jump over the rim if there was the slightest bit of resistance in the extraction. Replaced extractor, no more problem. I have had a rem do the same thing, replaced the extractor, no more problem. I have had two Rem 788's where the Cir clip of the extractor was broken but they stayed in place and extracted. Took me awhile to figure out why a case would drop out into the action every now and again.

To me the extra width of the extractor claw on the M98 and its derivatives is what help ensures the more reliable extraction.

BAS CRF is where the rim of the case is picked up by the extractor as the case is coming up from the magazine. The rim of the case should be engaged by the extractor before the case has cleared the magazine to be a true CRF.

 

[mark-hunter]

I would like to ask one question.

Controlled feed actions:
Do they count only as mauser 98 type actions (and clones) with long mauser extractor, or do you guys could consider some other types as well?

For example, sako 85 is advertised as CRF, and in my opinion is mix between CRF and PRF?

So what do you guys consider a CRF, apart of maser 98 clones? Are there any other non-98 examples, or no other types at all?