Controlled round feed for Dangerous Game

[Rule 303]

I don't know. I don't demand total air superiority before I will enter a country.

So your serious suggestion is based on comparing an automated system of cartridge control to a manual one? I hope you see the problem with that...

No I do not. Automated or not they are push feed. Simple really.
Not sure what having air superiority has got to do with anything we are talking about.

 

[abferrell60]

I suspect that this statement is a reflection on the sheer number of CRF actions that are rebarreled and otherwise worked over for larger than original chamberings and this is the aspect that many gun tinkerers have the most trouble with. Generally you do not hear of guns being built by competant gunsmiths lacking in this area.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

chris,
any big well designed extractor will pull a case out of a chamber except untder extreme conditions.
it just so happens that a mauser has such a thing, and a winchester nearly as good.
a good extractor on a controlled round feed action MUST ONLY feed from the mag, and not allow the extractor to snap over the rim of a chambered round.
a pushfeed can push a round into the chamber, but will not extract unless the bolt is closed.
if you push such an action without closing, it will leave the round in the chamber.
under pressure this has been known to happen, then another round stripped from the mag and shoved against the chambered one, causing a jam.
by the time you clear it you might just be a smear on the dirt.
this is the primary benefit of controlled feed in a dangerous game rifle.
the round is captured by the extractor on the way in.
certainly this will aid feeding if you happen to be standing on your head.
controlled round feed is just what it says, - controlled round feed.

I realize this is a dated thread but felt I need to address this fella's misinformation. A good CRF rifle SHOULD allow the extractor to snap over ... IF the receiver and extractor has been machined to allow it. As Duane Weibe points out in his book for building magnums on standard action Mauser 98, snap over is especially important for using one of these to hunt dangerous game. The gun only holds four rounds tops and as we have seen from the PH mishap with buffalo last week, sometimes that's not enough. I can drop another round in the chamber and close on it without looking. As we saw in another video, trying to dodge an angry buffalo while trying to reload a broke open double rifle can be deadly business. Recall that PH unknowingly backed himself into an acacia tree because his eyes were too busy looking at his gun and the buff while he was running backwards. Trying to shove a round in the magazine of push feed DGR would be no less fiddly and dangerous.

Not all CRF are designed to snap over, as Wiebe warns. Many of the modern versions of Mauser 98 do not have beveled extractor or clearance in the receiver's extractor trough. My PH was aghast when I snapped over a round with his 375 CZ that I borrowed to shoot buffalo. I didn't know any different. Up till then I'd been a one-gun guy for over fifty years, shooting literally tons of animals with the WWII 30-06 Springfield Dad built two years before I started hunting in 1962. I thought all guns could close on a round in the chamber. And PH's did too. Just fine ... much to his relief.

Knowing what I know now, I will cease to snap over except in emergency. Both Mauser and Springfield can pick up the additional round with a full magazine. I can push the extra round down on the full magazine just enough to get it under the claw then close the bolt. Until recently making this discovery, I held down the rounds in the box, dropped a cartridge in the chamber, and closed the bolt. My Springfield has stamped one-piece bottom metal which does not allow bottom loading but I upgraded the Mauser to a hinged floorplate. In Africa I tried loading the Mauser from the bottom and discovered that is NOT the way to go with a DGR. If the rounds are not staggered just right in respect to follower, the gun will jam during cycling.

 

[Tam Dl]

No I do not. Automated or not they are push feed. Simple really.

The difference is cycling all happens so fast and in such a regulated fashion that the same issues do not arise as with manual actions. A properly configured bolt action can be short stroked, and different action types can create different outcomes. reliability and consistency are part of the reasons we automate things. Semi-auto, and auto, actions can fail to function, but they can go thousands of rounds with perfect outcomes. They fail for other reasons, when they do.

Shooting out of position can cause failure to feed with push feed, but not with CRF. However the semi auto will feed the cartridge perfectly with the rifle held upside down. Not a condition I worry about, but it shows how the same mechanism has different outcomes when automated.

There is a reason why CRF actions were so popular on battle rifles, etc... Semi autos would be devastating if they were legal for DG, as they are in some places.

Manual push feed actions do have advantages for DG rifles but they are not the same ones as CRF.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

The difference is cycling all happens so fast and in such a regulated fashion that the same issues do not arise as with manual actions. A properly configured bolt action can be short stroked, and different action types can create different outcomes. reliability and consistency are part of the reasons we automate things. Semi-auto, and auto, actions can fail to function, but they can go thousands of rounds with perfect outcomes. They fail for other reasons, when they do.

Shooting out of position can cause failure to feed with push feed, but not with CRF. However the semi auto will feed the cartridge perfectly with the rifle held upside down. Not a condition I worry about, but it shows how the same mechanism has different outcomes when automated.

There is a reason why CRF actions were so popular on battle rifles, etc... Semi autos would be devastating if they were legal for DG, as they are in some places.

Manual push feed actions do have advantages for DG rifles but they are not the same ones as CRF.

The problem with semi autos is that they are constantly looking for an excuse to stop working. A friend of mine had a Remington auto fail to feed after one shot. Twice BB when hunting with my cousin his BAR failed after one shot. Both guys went back.to bolt actions for hunting. Another friend has a BAR, but says he had problems with it, although I wasn't with him when when when the issue came up. There is no way that I would choose a semi auto for a dangerous game hunt.

 

[Rule 303]

The difference is cycling all happens so fast and in such a regulated fashion that the same issues do not arise as with manual actions. A properly configured bolt action can be short stroked, and different action types can create different outcomes. reliability and consistency are part of the reasons we automate things. Semi-auto, and auto, actions can fail to function, but they can go thousands of rounds with perfect outcomes. They fail for other reasons, when they do.

Shooting out of position can cause failure to feed with push feed, but not with CRF. However the semi auto will feed the cartridge perfectly with the rifle held upside down. Not a condition I worry about, but it shows how the same mechanism has different outcomes when automated.

There is a reason why CRF actions were so popular on battle rifles, etc... Semi autos would be devastating if they were legal for DG, as they are in some places.

Manual push feed actions do have advantages for DG rifles but they are not the same ones as CRF.

You really have drunk the CRF cool aide. Push feeds work upside down and on any other angle. CRF fail in all conditions too. I have seen/used CRF that have failed in all the things they are said not to and that's with out turning them upside down.

Any manual actioned rifle can be short stroked. Don't forget that some of the sniper bolt action rifles are push feed.

 

[Rule 303]

I realize this is a dated thread but felt I need to address this fella's misinformation. A good CRF rifle SHOULD allow the extractor to snap over ... IF the receiver and extractor has been machined to allow it. As Duane Weibe points out in his book for building magnums on standard action Mauser 98, snap over is especially important for using one of these to hunt dangerous game. The gun only holds four rounds tops and as we have seen from the PH mishap with buffalo last week, sometimes that's not enough. I can drop another round in the chamber and close on it without looking. As we saw in another video, trying to dodge an angry buffalo while trying to reload a broke open double rifle can be deadly business. Recall that PH unknowingly backed himself into an acacia tree because his eyes were too busy looking at his gun and the buff while he was running backwards. Trying to shove a round in the magazine of push feed DGR would be no less fiddly and dangerous.

Dropping a round on top of a CRF or PF magazine follower can result in the cartridge failing to feed into the chamber or feeding, it depends on the rifle and the cartridge. CRF are great but not fool proof or perfect. They do fail and will double feed amongst all the other things they are not susspose to do.

Ontario Hunter, dose not matter if the rifle is CRF or PF, drop a round onto the follower and close the bolt. Both types will feed or not feed, depends on the rifle and calibre and bullet profile.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Dropping a round on top of a CRF or PF magazine follower can result in the cartridge failing to feed into the chamber or feeding, it depends on the rifle and the cartridge. CRF are great but not fool proof or perfect. They do fail and will double feed amongst all the other things they are not susspose to do.

Ontario Hunter, dose not matter if the rifle is CRF or PF, drop a round onto the follower and close the bolt. Both types will feed or not feed, depends on the rifle and calibre and bullet profile.

Of course. And I had difficulty getting the first batch of 404 reloads to snap over. Turns out the RWS brass I bought was short in length. I set my dies up to full length size based on those brass and pushed the shoulders back. But I ALWAYS check cycle DGR loads before heading into buffalo country. Bought a box of Hornady brass the correct length and reset my dies. Solved the problem.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

You really have drunk the CRF cool aide. Push feeds work upside down and on any other angle. CRF fail in all conditions too. I have seen/used CRF that have failed in all the things they are said not to and that's with out turning them upside down.

Any manual actioned rifle can be short stroked. Don't forget that some of the sniper bolt action rifles are push feed.

I will tell you a story. When I shot my first buffalo, he didn't fall over right away. We followed him into the acacia and mopane. The PH spotted the bull and took the shot with his push feed Model 70. The bull collapsed and we.moved in. The buffalo looked dead but we were careful. When the PH got within about ten feet he saw that the bull was watching him. He threw up his rifle as the buffalo jumped to his feet and started to close on him. He pulled the trigger to a loud "click." I broke that buffalos neck before he hit the PH. After the last shot, the PH had cycled the bolt, but the next round failed to move up, and he closed the bolt on an empty chamber.

Another friend of mine was a gunsmith. He told.me that he had often had to replace the tiny extractor on push feed bolts and that they were far more likely to fail than a CRF.

Most of my rifles are PFs. Either a M70 or a M700. I like them and have taken many animals without anything breaking in some 50 years, but based on my experience and what I have learned from guys who know more about it than I do, I will never hunt anything that can bite, gore or stomp with anything other than a CRF.

 

[Aaron N]

I will tell you a story. When I shot my first buffalo, he didn't fall over right away. We followed him into the acacia and mopane. The PH spotted the bull and took the shot with his push feed Model 70. The bull collapsed and we.moved in. The buffalo looked dead but we were careful. When the PH got within about ten feet he saw that the bull was watching him. He threw up his rifle as the buffalo jumped to his feet and started to close on him. He pulled the trigger to a loud "click." I broke that buffalos neck before he hit the PH. After the last shot, the PH had cycled the bolt, but the next round failed to move up, and he closed the bolt on an empty chamber.

Another friend of mine was a gunsmith. He told.me that he had often had to replace the tiny extractor on push feed bolts and that they were far more likely to fail than a CRF.

Most of my rifles are PFs. Either a M70 or a M700. I like them and have taken many animals without anything breaking in some 50 years, but based on my experience and what I have learned from guys who know more about it than I do, I will never hunt anything that can bite, gore or stomp with anything other than a CRF.

I don't see how this failure can be attributed to being PF? It seems like a weak spring is to blame.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

I don't see how this failure can be attributed to being PF? It seems like a weak spring is to blame.

Maybe. I couldn't say. But I do know that the PH got rid of that rifle and now only hunts with CRF rifles. Could this incident have happened with a CRF rifle? Maybe, but it didn't.

 

[Aaron N]

Post in thread 'Good Gun Deals This Week'
https://www.africahunting.com/threads/good-gun-deals-this-week.66409/post-1229249

This was just posted the other day regarding weak follower springs

Maybe. I couldn't say. But I do know that the PH got rid of that rifle and now only hunts with CRF rifles. Could this incident have happened with a CRF rifle? Maybe, but it didn't.

 

[Gemsbok45]

Push feed for plains game! CRF for Dangerous game.Upside down or right side up try chambering a round while your running for your life, I worked for Remington and love the 700. I use a Model 70 for dangerous game.

 

[Grumpy gumpy]

Ontario Hunter, dose not matter if the rifle is CRF or PF,

Oh dear….did you mean "does"……I’m I going to have to get Theanimal to join this forum….

and as to PF not feeding, as said before, it will mostly be operator error in short stroking the bolt, not always, sometimes mag springs, sometimes dirty ammo jamming, stuff that happens to CRF as well
gumpy

 

[Grumpy gumpy]

Just noticed my stupid autocorrect changed "Am I " to "I’m I " , I’ll book myself into the "Pleasure emporium " for a re-education session when Rod gets back
gumpy

 

[Rule 303]

I do not in any way dispute that the wider extractor on the CRF is a better bet than the smaller extractor on the PF. what I am on about is that nothing is totally reliable. If it is man made something will go wrong with a design at some time. Might not be on your rifle but on somebody else's rifle of the same design.

Example, the M98 extractor on rifles where the extractor can snap over, I have had one do just that while trying to extract the round. Not a good place to be if something is coming after you, lucky for me the target was not attacking me. This happened a few times and it was an M17 action. Fault was the extractor was an M98 extractor not an M17 or Rugger 77 extractor. Somebody had replaced the original extractor with the wrong one.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

I do not in any way dispute that the wider extractor on the CRF is a better bet than the smaller extractor on the PF. what I am on about is that nothing is totally reliable. If it is man made something will go wrong with a design at some time. Might not be on your rifle but on somebody else's rifle of the same design.

Example, the M98 extractor on rifles where the extractor can snap over, I have had one do just that while trying to extract the round. Not a good place to be if something is coming after you, lucky for me the target was not attacking me. This happened a few times and it was an M17 action. Fault was the extractor was an M98 extractor not an M17 or Rugger 77 extractor. Somebody had replaced the original extractor with the wrong one.

Oh yeah. Anything that is manufactured can fail. Some things are more (or less) likely to fail though. I tend to place my bets on whatever appears to be the most reliable. 126 years and still held up as the overall best design works for me.

 

[Hunter-Habib]

Not all push feed rifles are created equally. When I first began big game hunting in the early 1970s (with my first African safari being to Kenya in 1974), push feed rifles were everywhere and only two CRF rifles were being produced at the time (the Czech BRNO ZKK series and the Serbian Interarms Mark X series).

The negative press associated with push feed rifles, actually stems from extraction issues with two very specific rifles: the Remington Model 700 and the post ‘64 Winchester Model 70. And yes, these rifles actually DID have extraction issues. I personally had a Remington Model 700 (in .375 Holland & Holland Magnum) fail to extract a spent cartridge (a 300Gr Remington round nosed steel jacketed FMJ solid) after the extractor broke, while on safari in 1979. It's also been documented to occur on multiple occasions with the Remington Model 700 rifles chambered in .416 Remington Magnum. The extractor is simply too small for cases as large as the .375. The small extractor of the Remington Model 700 and big cases such as the .375 Holland & Holland Magnum, are NOT a good combination. Especially in hot weather conditions/dusty terrain (such as Rift valley, Zambezi valley or the Kalahari). No less than three of my white hunters also reported extraction failures with push feed Winchester Model 70 rifles (mostly in .375 Holland & Holland Magnum, but also .458 Winchester Magnum) in dusty conditions. Another push feed rifle which was ill reputed for being plagued with extraction issues, was the Mauser Model 66.

Now, let’s talk about another push feed rifle action with a reputation for immense reliability: The old British B.S.A Majestic. It had a rather small looking extractor on one side of the bolt face, operated by a coil spring. The B.S.A Majestic bolt had a good sized extractor, rimming nearly a third of the bolt face circumference … spring loaded but able to move outwards and over the cartridge head when pushed against it in the chamber. The ejector was a plunger type in the bolt face. Despite being a push feed, these rifles extracted EXTREMELY reliably under all circumstances. Good old British engineering, perhaps. The B.S.A Majestic (in .458 Winchester Magnum) was the backup rifle of choice of my life’s first white hunter (Joe Cheffings) and he had an immense amount of confidence in the reliability of the rifle. It was also the backup rifle of choice of Lionell Palmer, Paul Grobler & Richard Harland's personal big game rifle of choice until 1973. Unfortunately, B.S.A manufactured these rifles with beastly muzzle brakes and only in five calibers (.243 Winchester, .270 Winchester, .308 Winchester, .30-06 Springfield and .458 Winchester Magnum).

Modern push feed rifles such as the German Blaser R-8 or the Danish Schultz & Larsen Ambassador are also extremely reliable.

So, yes. It depends on the TYPE of push feed action being used, rather than whether or not the action is a push feed. Making blanket statements that all push feed actions are unreliable, is definitely not accurate.

 

[Rule 303]

Hunter-Habib i do not know if I should thank or curse you for that information about the BSA Majestic.
Had I known that at the time I would have bought the one offered to me, not long after I got into shooting.

 

[Hunter-Habib]

Hunter-Habib i do not know if I should thank or curse you for that information about the BSA Majestic.
Had I known that at the time I would have bought the one offered to me, not long after I got into shooting.

If only you knew Hunter-Habib a few years earlier... Ah, well. All is not lost. I have visited and hunted in Australia quite a few times over the years ever since 1975. In 1975, you could find many excellent B.S.A Majestic rifles on the secondhand racks of most Australian gun shops. When I last visited Australia in 2021, I still saw a couple of them for sale a local gun shop. So clearly, the B.S.A Majestic is still holding it's own in the land down under (and with good reason).

In 1970s era Australia... I witnessed the following brands of rifles being the most popular amongst Australian sportsmen:
- Winchesters (with the Model 94 in .30-30 Winchester and the Model 70 in .308 WInchester being the most popular)
-B.S.A
- Parker Hale
- Sporterized Lee Enfields