A First Timers Guide to Buffalo

[wysongdog]

Thanks for the video Blaine. I appreciate it. Blaine’s currently building a rifle for me

 

[SRvet]

Video is very well done. I enjoyed it, and for the most point I agree with your thoughts and observations from your POV. You lost me a bit on speaking about the advantages of CRF. Why would you need a cleaning rod in the scenario you describe when a PF rifle is expressly designed to snap the extractor over a chambered round ? A PF rifle is BETTER in this scenario (round slides in chamber ahead of bolt with muzzle depressed) than CRF, in fact some CRF will NOT snap the extractor over a chambered round, ie, if a round ends up ahead of bolt face the extractor is not able to grab it, that is not an issue with a PF, as it is designed to push the cartridge into the chamber and then engage it with extractor. If a cleaning rod is needed to remove a cartridge or casing from the chamber of a PF rifle, either the ammunition or extractor is defective. Touting the advantages of CRF is so overdone in my opinion as to become cringeworthy (that is coming from someone who took a M98 on my recent buffalo hunt). I do like your open-mindedness to PF rifles and your very valid point on the learning to run your rifle regardless of style. I believe that individual rifle reliability and a user's skill trumps a certain category of action. I use and appreciate both. Very good video overall and congratulations on a beautiful buffalo !

I mainly agree with you when it comes to a double feed jam with the push round feed. Simply push the second round back into the mag or remove it and make sure the bolt rides over the next round and all will be good. Where this fails is when the PRF extractor has pulled the rim off the cartridge case. This is less likely with CFF as the extractor takes a bigger bite of the rim.

 

[roklok]

If an extractor pulls the rim off the case there are ammunition issues, and likely will cause a problem in either style. It is not unheard of for a claw style extractor to slip off the rim of a stuck case either. Both style extractors can break as well. You do bring up a good point though, many of the PF vs CRF arguments really come down to the general or perceived robustness of the extractor, not the manner in which a round is chambered.

 

[intj]

The main reason a CRF is a little more reliable is because of the PF double feed issue. That has been a known problem with push feeds for what, 100+ years?

What I illustrated in the video has indeed happened. When a round is jammed into the chamber via the double stroke, the rifle is disabled until at least one of rounds is removed.

I won't dispute that if the second round--the one loose in the magazine--is removed, we may be able to close the bolt on the one stuck in the chamber and have the extractor snap over the rim, allowing the rifle to be fired. I have not tested for that, but I suppose it would work. It must not work all the time because the complaint about a double stroke jamming a round in so hard that a cleaning rod is needed has been around for a long time, and that exact situation was also shown in the video. I suppose it depends of the particular rifle in question.

Regardless of how we have to clear a double stroke, it is going to slow down a follow up shot for too long in a DG hunting situation. Not to mention someone so stressed out that they double stroke their push feed is also likely too stressed to quickly clear it, even if it just entails removing the loose round.

Now the answer isn't to go buy a CRF and then leave it in the safe until your hunt. The answer is to become so proficient with working your action that you will do it properly even when stressed, whether it's a CRF, PF, DR, lever, or straight pull. In almost all circumstances, it is the OPERATOR, not the equipment that is the main factor........

 

[mark-hunter]

The main reason a CRF is a little more reliable is because of the PF double feed issue.

First question is why would that happen? It is something that happens to somebody first time handling the PF rifle. This does not fit the profile of a DG hunter.

Next is my experience. I watched it from one meter away:
I went on a group driven hunt with group of hunters.
A guy next to me wants to load his Voere mauser 98. (Voere, a less known Austrian rifle factory, still producing mauser 98 rifles on economy prices)

He puts the round on top of magazine follower, but not in the magazine so the round will be pushed under the extractor claw when round is chambered.
So, he pushed the round like this.
Round gets to chamber.
The extractor claw does not snap over the casing rim.
He pulls back the bolt, round stays in chamber.
He tries by force again to push bolt forward, hoping extractor claw will pass and snap over the rim of chambered round. This does not happen. He tried few times
He did not succeed.
He stayed with unusable rifle, with chambered round, and unlocked bolt, till the end of hunt, and emptied the chamber when got home where he fixed the problem with cleaning rod.

Next issue is loading and material fatigue, (usually standard 5 + 1), by repeating similar process to load one more over the full magazine, in a same way as above described. By snapping the claw over the rim of the casing. On some Mauser 98 rifles this is possible.
In some time, with such use claw extractor can brake due to fatigue of material, after a hundreds or thousands of loading in this way. This is not proper way how to load the rifle, but some are doing it repetitively. (Maybe they did not read the users manual? Who knows?).

Needless to say PF rifles do not have this problem.

I know the standard "flaws" of CRF vs push feed system, but I managed on purpose to jam my CRF rifle by short stroke when testing it with dummy rounds.
Bottom line, both systems CRF and push feed can be jammed by incompetent handling. This is the hole point. There is no fool proof rifles.

But I admit, I have a weak spot for CRF, and my safari gun is CRF rifle in 375 H&H. I just love it, on magnum length action, 6 rounds magazine capacity, and safari flip up iron sights

 

[intj]

First question is why would that happen? It is something that happens to somebody first time handling the PF rifle. This does not fit the profile of a DG hunter.

Next is my experience. I watched it from one meter away:
I went on a group driven hunt with group of hunters.
A guy next to me wants to load his Voere mauser 98. (Voere, a less known Austrian rifle factory, still producing mauser 98 rifles on economy prices)

He puts the round on top of magazine follower, but not in the magazine so the round will be pushed under the extractor claw when round is chambered.
So, he pushed the round like this.
Round gets to chamber.
The extractor claw does not snap over the casing rim.
He pulls back the bolt, round stays in chamber.
He tries by force again to push bolt forward, hoping extractor claw will pass and snap over the rim of chambered round. This does not happen. He tried few times
He did not succeed.
He stayed with unusable rifle, with chambered round, and unlocked bolt, till the end of hunt, and emptied the chamber when got home where he fixed the problem with cleaning rod.

Next issue is loading and material fatigue, (usually standard 5 + 1), by repeating similar process to load one more over the full magazine, in a same way as above described. By snapping the claw over the rim of the casing. On some Mauser 98 rifles this is possible.
In some time, with such use claw extractor can brake due to fatigue of material, after a hundreds or thousands of loading in this way. This is not proper way how to load the rifle, but some are doing it repetitively. (Maybe they did not read the users manual? Who knows?).

Needless to say PF rifles do not have this problem.

I know the standard "flaws" of CRF vs push feed system, but I managed on purpose to jam my CRF rifle by short stroke when testing it with dummy rounds.
Bottom line, both systems CRF and push feed can be jammed by incompetent handling. This is the hole point. There is no fool proof rifles.

But I admit, I have a weak spot for CRF, and my safari gun is CRF rifle in 375 H&H. I just love it, on magnum length action, 6 rounds magazine capacity, and safari flip up iron sights

View attachment 673890

Yes, an improperly set up or worn claw extractor can leave a round in the chamber. One made from inferior materials can break. These same issues--poor set up, worn out parts, inferior materials, happen even worse with push feeds.

I have seen push feeds have a similar issue you described with the M-98. It happened to me with a Rem 700. I put a round in the chamber and the bolt would not close. I had to push out the live round with a cleaning rod. I then had to reshape and polish the face of that tiny extractor to get it to snap over the rim. I have also had a Rem 700 extractor break, and had one Rem 700 that would occasionally leave rounds in the chamber.

Any way we cut it, the CRF design is a little more reliable for feeding and extraction than a push feed. That is why Paul Mauser created the M-98 in the first place.

It takes a lot more, almost an intentional effort to get a CRF to double feed. It is much easier to get a push feed to get double feed, as 100+ years of PF use has shown us.

I agree that anyone going after DG should be competent and handling their rifle, but the PHs often tell a different story.

I love push feeds on my 1000 yd BR rifles. Outside of that, I have come to much prefer CRF hunting rifles.

 

[mark-hunter]

Any way we cut it, the CRF design is a little more reliable for feeding and extraction than a push feed. That is why Paul Mauser created the M-98 in the first place.

It takes a lot more, almost an intentional effort to get a CRF to double feed. It is much easier to get a push feed to get double feed, as 100+ years of PF use has shown us.

I agree that anyone going after DG should be competent and handling their rifle, but the PHs often tell a different story.

I love push feeds on my 1000 yd BR rifles. Outside of that, I have come to much prefer CRF hunting rifles.

Yes:
Mauser design is mil spec, for full reliability, for semi trained people, fighting the war in trenches. It must be safe for rough use, rough handling, and absolute reliability in war conditions.

Push feed era, generally started with Remington 700, designed as economic competition to WInchester m70. Not designed for war.
Due to set of circumstances Remington 700 found its way to jungles of Vietnam, as a sniper rifle, and remained in such role as sniper rifle for years to come.

Push feeds for long range is unwritten rule.
I shoot f class at 600 meters (no ranges longer then 600 in my vicinity), and many of specialized F class rifles are single shots. Due to previously described issues, CRF system would be very much inconvenient in such role.
Also, simple to produce, Remington push feed action clones are probably most common in long range, bench rest, f class and similar sports.

I must also say: My rifles never jammed on me during use - whether hunting, or target shooting. Push Feeds or CRF. Overall looking, rifles are working machines. My rifles are also pampered and cared for, I try not to drag them through mud, I clean them regularly, oil them, so they have no excuse for malfunction. But that is civilian use.
Trench and jungle warfare are the thing for which CRF was invented. I dont think that average civilian rifles is treated like that.