CRF vs Push feed

[mauserhunter]

I would disagree that PF has killed more DG. CRF bolts are way more popular in Africa than the USA.

Yup was there even many pf used at all before the 1950s, there been a lot of game killed over there with crf.

 

[Scott CWO]

Because push-feed is better.

Mostly because it's less expensive to produce. Same reason that CZ recently discontinued the CZ550 line in favor of their PF variant.

That’s not why they discontinued the 550. They discontinued it because the machinery needed complete replacing and the market for DG rifles is much smaller than the black rifle craze and long distance craze. Purely a cost/benefit analysis. They didn’t choose PF because it’s better. They just closed down the 550 line instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars (or maybe more) to replace it to build rifles for a small market.

 

[Jim Golden]

Don’t some CRF jam when you single feed one down the tube with out being magazine fed ?

I have my claw extractors beveled on the front edge so they'll snap over. But you "can" squeeze the middle of the claw extractor that is not machined that way to snap over the case rim. But I figure I'd never remember to do that if a big beastie is charging me, so grind the front edges so they will snap over.

 

[BeeMaa]

That’s not why they discontinued the 550. They discontinued it because the machinery needed complete replacing and the market for DG rifles is much smaller than the black rifle craze and long distance craze. Purely a cost/benefit analysis. They didn’t choose PF because it’s better. They just closed down the 550 line instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars (or maybe more) to replace it to build rifles for a small market.

Yeah, I know. Knew that when I sold you the 375 too. How’s that one treating you?

 

[CoElkHunter]

I have my claw extractors beveled on the front edge so they'll snap over. But you "can" squeeze the middle of the claw extractor that is not machined that way to snap over the case rim. But I figure I'd never remember to do that if a big beastie is charging me, so grind the front edges so they will snap over.

I might be wrong but I think the Interarms Mark X and Whitworths may have the beveled extractors from the factory as my Whitworths have them too? My CZ 550s don't.

 

[Safari Dave]

I do most of my hunting with Remington Model 700's and I have never had a problem in 47 years with many, many, Model 700's.

But, I have never taken one to Africa and don't have one chambered for a DG cartridge.

The only rifle I have ever had to send back to the manufacturer was a Ruger M77 (crf), because it wouldn't eject.

 

[Uncontrolled_round_feed]

Have had loads of both. Only issue was a failure to feed and chamber with a Rem 788. Extractor was sharp enough little shavings would trim off the brass and build up under the extractor and it wouldn’t feed. Accurate bugger though.
You can probably guess which way I lean

 

[mark-hunter]

If a CRF is so much better, why are most of the tactical rifles push feed?

For the convenience of the factory.
PF actions are cheaper to produce. Much much cheaper.
Remington 700 action was revolutionary in design for economic production, designed to beat Winchester m70 on the market with unbeatable price.

To paraphrase your question:
If PF is so much better, why all high end, fine gun workshops produce only CRF?
(Rigby, H&H, Westley Richards, Purdey, Jeffery, etc)

 

[CoElkHunter]

IMO if Remington had modified their Safari models with at least dual ejectors and a more beefy extractor when the 700 was introduced in 1963, they may not have suffered the problems with the larger DG cartridge extraction/ejecting issues. I guess like usual it’s all about manufacturing costs.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

I might be wrong but I think the Interarms Mark X and Whitworths may have the beveled extractors from the factory as my Whitworths have them too? My CZ 550s don't.

Wartime 98 Mausers and Springfields were military issue with snap over extractors. The thinking was soldier might need to drop a shell in the chamber in a hurry after the magazine was emptied. But why make the follower block the bolt from closing when mag was empty? Mauser did add the cutout on the side of receiver for depressing the follower with thumb but moving left hand off the forearm slowed snap over loading considerably. If I was in the trenches during WWI, I would have filed the follower to allow bolt closing on empty mag.

 

[Luvthunt]

I believe most of the problem with PF is the Rem 700 extractor. Have had seveveral failures with it. Replaced with Sako extractor early M16 later. Never had issues after

 

[DG870]

I believe the cutout in the Mauser receiver was to facilitate loading via stripper clips and the follower blocking the bolt was to let the soldier know his rifle was empty in the confusion during the heat of the battle. German thoughts in designing a battle rifle.

 

[tward1604]

It's the old tomato potato argument in my opinion. Yes generally the CRF will give better extraction than the push feed. Personally I prefer CRF on all my rifles. I have never had a push feed fail me either. From the beginning I have always operated the bolt with gusto to make sure I'm not getting anything jammed up. In fact the only failures I've ever had was with a custom CRF action. The ejector blade was a touch too short and the spend brass just laid in the action. Called the gunsmith and he knew immediately the issue and sent out a new longer ejector blade and there we go, never an issue after that.

I did have an extractor spring on my M4 break as I started a movement to contact range in Singapore one time. Operating a bolt action M4 over a 500 yard range in the middle of a rain sucked a lot of ass.

So Push feed VS CRF...what is better for buffalo 375 vs 416...what's better for whitetail 30/06 vs 270?

 

[Ontario Hunter]

I believe the cutout in the Mauser receiver was to facilitate loading via stripper clips and the follower blocking the bolt was to let the soldier know his rifle was empty in the confusion during the heat of the battle. German thoughts in designing a battle rifle.

Cutout on top of receiver is for stripper clip. I don't see how the cutout on left side of receiver will facilitate stripper clip loading. Isn't it for escaping gasses (but could be used for depressing follower)? Seems everyone who made military rifles copied Mauser's blocking follower. Perhaps the concept predates his design? Anyway, fitting guns with empty mag blocking follower seems to defeat the purpose of snap over extractor. Perhaps it was in case a round jumped the rail early and didn't get on the bolt face properly, i.e. rim not under extractor. Closing on it could break an extractor that's not snap over designed = dead soldier in a firefight.

 

[DG870]

The cutout on the left side allows the rifle to be loaded with the left hand while the right hand controls the rifle.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

The cutout on the left side allows the rifle to be loaded with the left hand while the right hand controls the rifle.

View attachment 592449

The balance point is or should be just ahead of the magazine, not at pistol grip. Why wouldn't one retain grip on the rifle there with left hand and load with right hand? Easier to handle the gun if it's balanced. Seems right-handed people should load with right hand. I do. And military rifles are ALWAYS designed for right-handed soldiers. I think it would be awkward trying to load left-handed. I just assumed bolt rifles are loaded from same side as they eject. Also, soldier just opened the bolt with right hand and retrieved next stripper clip, presumably also with that now free right hand. Why would he regrip the rifle with free right hand to change to left hand for loading, then switch gun grip again to close the bolt with right hand? That's some serious gun juggling in the heat of combat.

 

[tward1604]

It's the same premise regardless of the hand being used to put the rounds in. The cutout in the left side of the receiver is there to help facilitate reloading.

The squared follower is there to stop the rifle from closing on an empty chamber. In the heat of battle pulling the trigger on an empty chamber is bad news bears. It is the same as the bolt hold open on the modern M4. Especially if well trained on immediate action. With a bolt action the shooter would operate the bolt in attempt to get back in the fight only to be empty still. if you can't close the bolt you have to check why. Quickly it's an "oh shit I'm empty", reload and get back to it. It also saves a step in the reloading cycle if the bolt is already open.

 

[buffybr]

My first centerfire rifle was a Herter's Model U9 in .30-06. I killed at least 30 elk, 2 moose, and a lot of other animals with that rifle without ever having a cartridge feeding problem. My .357RUM, a couple of 7 mm Rem mags, and 3 Weatherby Vanguards are all push feed actions that I have never had a problem with.

In 1977 I built two more rifles using Mauser Mark X (controlled feed) actions. One of those rifles is my .257 Ackley that I've shot just about every deer and antelope and a number of other animals with it ever since.

Prior to the internet, I knew there was a difference between my Rem 700 and my other push feed actions and my Mauser controlled feed actions, but I never knew that one was susposed to be better than the other.

But I've never tried to work either action while hanging upside down by my knees from a tree limb.

 

[John Wasmuth]

The cutout on the left side allows the rifle to be loaded with the left hand while the right hand controls the rifle.

View attachment 592449

Exactly how it works.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Exactly how it works.

Perhaps. But I cannot see how it would work very well. I'd like to see a Manual of Arms that directs right-handed soldiers using right-hand bolt rifles to load with the left hand. It just doesn't make sense. But then I spent enough time in the Army to know making sense is not always a top priority in the military. I figured that out early on in basic training when they handed me an M16. "We're supposed to kill people with this gopher gun?"