Rifle Actions (Ranked)

[Vashper]

1. BRNO ZKK. Closer to the original than the CZ550, but not the original military Mauser 98, because the safer, trigger, optical sight mount. You can also use a hunting Mauser, but why if you have a ZKK?
2. AK, even in the "AKMoid" variant, although they are a maximum of 30-06.
3. S/S Purdue (a blue dream, only once held in my hands)
strength, durability and reliability.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Lee Speed / Enfield - tough / reliable .

Is that the sound of silence that I hear ?

@PCC600

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Lee Speed / Enfield - tough / reliable .

Is that the sound of silence that I hear ?

@PCC600
Second that in the P14 and M17 Enfield. Can be made into any calibre you want and make it classy. H&H used them for bespoke 375s, Art Alpin used them for his big A square cartridges due to their strength. I have made a couple of superbly accurate rifles out of them that look really nice.
My other favourite action is the Savage 110.
Simple, easy to modify and change to a different calibre and cheap compared to others. Are they a pretty action, no but they are strong and reliable and there's no such animal as an inaccurate Savage. They are great shooters straight out if the box. The beauty of the Savage is that with a couple of basic tools and if you have a bit more intelligence than a 5 year old you can swap out barrels on your own.
@ BeeMaa will tell you it's easier to swap barrels in his beloved Barbie R8 and it is but for the price of an R8 barrel you can get several for the Savage.
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Did he test the Arisaka? My understanding is that they are unbelievably strong.

@baxterb
When P O Ackley did his blow up test the Mauser 98 blew up first then the Enfield and lastly the Arisaka. This was the early model Arisaka the ones near the end of the war suffered greatly and a fire cracker could be dangerous in some
Bob

 

[IvW]

Pitty he did not test a ZKK.....

 

[PCC600]

@PCC600
Second that in the P14 and M17 Enfield. Can be made into any calibre you want and make it classy. H&H used them for bespoke 375s, Art Alpin used them for his big A square cartridges due to their strength. I have made a couple of superbly accurate rifles out of them that look really nice.
My other favourite action is the Savage 110.
Simple, easy to modify and change to a different calibre and cheap compared to others. Are they a pretty action, no but they are strong and reliable and there's no such animal as an inaccurate Savage. They are great shooters straight out if the box. The beauty of the Savage is that with a couple of basic tools and if you have a bit more intelligence than a 5 year old you can swap out barrels on your own.
@ BeeMaa will tell you it's easier to swap barrels in his beloved Barbie R8 and it is but for the price of an R8 barrel you can get several for the Savage.
Bob

I have shot a 404J made by H&H and using a M17 action . It was a plain but very nice rifle made in the 50s . Apparently these were priced well under Mauser actioned rifles . I thought it was great .

 

[HankBuck]

I prefer CRF over push feed. Both my go-to hunting rifles are dolled up WWII era military rifles. Have never owned a push feed rifle and am sure I never will. The only real advantage to them is they are cheaper to make and therefore cheaper to sell/buy. Lots of disadvantages. "Modern Sporting Rifles" (aka ARs) do not charm me ... at all. I had enough of that crap in the Army.

WOW ONTARIO, an entire type of rifle action “trashed” and you’ve Never even owned one?? My PH in TZ carried a push feed .416 Remington — he must’ve been an idiot…glad I survived that Safari. I don’t know enough about rifle manufacture to have a strong opinion on either the quality or cost….but I own both and both work well, my push feeds are faster to cycle another round into the chamber but that could be subjective?? Not sure.
Now, I’m going out on a limb here and while I’ve Never served in the Military EVERY Gun ever made for the Military “Cost was a factor” ALWAYS. So I doubt the Military made CRF rifles because they were MORE expensive?. I thought the reason might be that the Mauser ‘98 action was already proven reliable, and fast, easy, economical to produce - so the Military cranked out a few million…and they served well in a couple Wars, then tried the Garand, then the 30 cal carbine (that didn’t go well) then M16,.etc.. Constant evolution, trial, error, always innovation… Good thing Military leaders didn’t keep using “Muskets” because that was All they owned.

 

[HankBuck]

@PCC600
Second that in the P14 and M17 Enfield. Can be made into any calibre you want and make it classy. H&H used them for bespoke 375s, Art Alpin used them for his big A square cartridges due to their strength. I have made a couple of superbly accurate rifles out of them that look really nice.
My other favourite action is the Savage 110.
Simple, easy to modify and change to a different calibre and cheap compared to others. Are they a pretty action, no but they are strong and reliable and there's no such animal as an inaccurate Savage. They are great shooters straight out if the box. The beauty of the Savage is that with a couple of basic tools and if you have a bit more intelligence than a 5 year old you can swap out barrels on your own.
@ BeeMaa will tell you it's easier to swap barrels in his beloved Barbie R8 and it is but for the price of an R8 barrel you can get several for the Savage.
Bob

Bob, Savage makes a great .243 and very affordable.

 

[CZDiesel]

Winchester Pre-64 M-70 Long Action
Winchester Pre-64 M-70 Magnum Length
Winchester Pre-64 M-70 Short Action
Winchester 1886
Winchester 1894
Winchester 1892

See what I did their lol OK, I’m a Winchester guy, I admit a little bias

 

[CoElkHunter]

WOW ONTARIO, an entire type of rifle action “trashed” and you’ve Never even owned one?? My PH in TZ carried a push feed .416 Remington — he must’ve been an idiot…glad I survived that Safari. I don’t know enough about rifle manufacture to have a strong opinion on either the quality or cost….but I own both and both work well, my push feeds are faster to cycle another round into the chamber but that could be subjective?? Not sure.
Now, I’m going out on a limb here and while I’ve Never served in the Military EVERY Gun ever made for the Military “Cost was a factor” ALWAYS. So I doubt the Military made CRF rifles because they were MORE expensive?. I thought the reason might be that the Mauser ‘98 action was already proven reliable, and fast, easy, economical to produce - so the Military cranked out a few million…and they served well in a couple Wars, then tried the Garand, then the 30 cal carbine (that didn’t go well) then M16,.etc.. Constant evolution, trial, error, always innovation… Good thing Military leaders didn’t keep using “Muskets” because that was All they owned.

Don't forget the M14?

 

[Monsai52]

Ruger No.1
'03 Springfield
98 Mauser
Mannlicher-Schoenauer

The 98 should probably be above the Springfield, but I have a soft spot for the '03. Every built '03 I've ever handled has been amazingly smooth and fast to cycle.

Best regards,

 

[CoElkHunter]

Bob, Savage makes a great .243 and very affordable.

In the "Muddy Girl" model that would match Bob's boots? LOL

 

[CoElkHunter]

Winchester Pre-64 M-70 Long Action
Winchester Pre-64 M-70 Magnum Length
Winchester Pre-64 M-70 Short Action
Winchester 1886
Winchester 1894
Winchester 1892

See what I did their lol OK, I’m a Winchester guy, I admit a little bias

Since you live where I do, you should come buy some time and gaze at a couple of real DG rifles, the CZ 550s! LOL

 

[CZDiesel]

Since you live where I do, you should come buy some time and gaze at a couple of real DG rifles, the CZ 550s! LOL

I’ll take you up on that offer! And we can take our CZ’s and Winchesters to the range and post the pics up for the forum!

 

[318AE]

I was hesitant to weigh in, but I see so many misguided souls:

1) M98 and all its variants; M70, Springfield etc
2) Farquharson and its variants, including Ruger #1
3) Anson and Deeley boxlock and similar
4) Semi-autos designed by Browning and Garand
5) 1895 that shoots the pointy bullets and the rest that have the tube magazines
6) Semi-autos designed by Kalishnakov and the rest
7) Randos - Darne sliding breech, Ross, Certus, whatever the blaser stuff is the Rolex guys talk about
8) Whatever shows up at the guns buy backs in large blue cities up north
9) Push feeds, manbuns, apartment dogs, student loan forgiveness, that microwave bacon they serve at the “free” breakfast at Hampton Inn and the like

 

[Doug Hamilton]

WOW ONTARIO, an entire type of rifle action “trashed” and you’ve Never even owned one?? My PH in TZ carried a push feed .416 Remington — he must’ve been an idiot…glad I survived that Safari. I don’t know enough about rifle manufacture to have a strong opinion on either the quality or cost….but I own both and both work well, my push feeds are faster to cycle another round into the chamber but that could be subjective?? Not sure.
Now, I’m going out on a limb here and while I’ve Never served in the Military EVERY Gun ever made for the Military “Cost was a factor” ALWAYS. So I doubt the Military made CRF rifles because they were MORE expensive?. I thought the reason might be that the Mauser ‘98 action was already proven reliable, and fast, easy, economical to produce - so the Military cranked out a few million…and they served well in a couple Wars, then tried the Garand, then the 30 cal carbine (that didn’t go well) then M16,.etc.. Constant evolution, trial, error, always innovation… Good thing Military leaders didn’t keep using “Muskets” because that was All they owned.

Oh Hank - While you do have a point about the military wanting to keep costs down, that is not how they develop designs, and haven't since they got rid of the .45-70 single shot. Have you ever heard the term "mil-spec?" They want whatever works best and is built to exacting specifications, then they try to get that at the lowest cost. Push feed actions are and have been used in the military as sniper rifles, (Remington but not as battle rifles. The requirements are different. They found the Remington action to be a little more accurate, if not as reliable. The military uses a different designation other than Model 700, but it's really the same.

I do own and have used push-feed actions for at least 50 years. Mostly they are what I use for deer and pronghorn hunts. In 1983 I made my first safari. A buffalo bull went down when my PH shot him after he appeared to be dying from my shots. He approached the bull which appeared to be finished. At about 10 feet the buffalo jumped to his feet and started to close on the PH. I heard him pull the trigger with a very distinct "click." I broke the bulls neck before he got to the PH. I asked what had happened. He had fired the shot and threw the bolt. Being a push-feed action without the extra control, he closed the bolt on an empty chamber. I was using my .458 WM on a Mauser action. Dead reliable. Before I went back to Africa I had a .300 WM built on an identical CRF action.

I still like PF rifles, but if the next animal you see could gore, bash, bite or stomp you Control-round feed actions are better. If I ever had to choose just one type to hunt with that's what it would be.

 

[VertigoBE]

Oh Hank - While you do have a point about the military wanting to keep costs down, that is not how they develop designs, and haven't since they got rid of the .45-70 single shot. Have you ever heard the term "mil-spec?" They want whatever works best and is built to exacting specifications, then they try to get that at the lowest cost. Push feed actions are and have been used in the military as sniper rifles, (Remington but not as battle rifles. The requirements are different. They found the Remington action to be a little more accurate, if not as reliable. The military uses a different designation other than Model 700, but it's really the same.

I do own and have used push-feed actions for at least 50 years. Mostly they are what I use for deer and pronghorn hunts. In 1983 I made my first safari. A buffalo bull went down when my PH shot him after he appeared to be dying from my shots. He approached the bull which appeared to be finished. At about 10 feet the buffalo jumped to his feet and started to close on the PH. I heard him pull the trigger with a very distinct "click." I broke the bulls neck before he got to the PH. I asked what had happened. He had fired the shot and threw the bolt. Being a push-feed action without the extra control, he closed the bolt on an empty chamber. I was using my .458 WM on a Mauser action. Dead reliable. Before I went back to Africa I had a .300 WM built on an identical CRF action.

I still like PF rifles, but if the next animal you see could gore, bash, bite or stomp you Control-round feed actions are better. If I ever had to choose just one type to hunt with that's what it would be.

Thank you for this anecdote, could you explain in layman’s terms how a CRF and a PF work differently that the situation you described could not happen with a CRF?

I own both, and clearly prefer CRF over PF, but mostly this is for their smoothness and good looks, more than any difference in reliability or safety.

As a reference, my centerfire PF rifle is a Mauser M03. My CRF rifles are dumoulin/francotte actioned.

I really would like to better understand the mechanics of those differences and how one is superior to the other, as this is not completely clear to me.

Thank you

 

[Flewis]

Pitty he did not test a ZKK.....

They did and took it too just below 2 hundred thousand psi. It didn’t blow up. I don’t remember all the actions they tested but it was the strongest. If was a 602.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Thank you for this anecdote, could you explain in layman’s terms how a CRF and a PF work differently that the situation you described could not happen with a CRF?

I own both, and clearly prefer CRF over PF, but mostly this is for their smoothness and good looks, more than any difference in reliability or safety.

As a reference, my centerfire PF rifle is a Mauser M03. My CRF rifles are dumoulin/francotte actioned.

I really would like to better understand the mechanics of those differences and how one is superior to the other, as this is not completely clear to me.

Thank you

Essentially, a push feed ejects the empty case as soon as it clears the ejection port because the ejector is on the bolt face. CRF typically have an ejector attached to receiver at the back end of the bolt track just ahead of the back end of magazine box. If a CRF action is properly tuned to the ammo length, it is pretty much impossible to eject an empty case and close the bolt without it picking up the next round in magazine. But it's a relatively easier occurrence with push feed. The shooter quickly cycling the fired gun sees the empty case eject and closes the bolt well before it's pulled back far enough to pick up next cartridge in magazine. Shooter then closes on an empty chamber and fires air at the charging buffalo. This is the classic "short-stroking" phenomenon. The push feed shooter must remember to not be fooled by the case ejecting. He must take care to draw the bolt all the way back before closing. The CRF shooter cannot be deceived by premature ejection of fired case. When the empty goes flying, it's time to close the bolt and next cartridge will be picked up.

The supposed advantage to push feed, besides being cheaper to make, is a cartridge can be manually dropped in the open action with empty mag and bolt closed to fire. May be handy in a firefight with angry dangerous game where shooter does not have time to reload the magazine. However, if the claw and receiver on CRF rifle are properly engineered, the extractor should be able to "snap over" the rim of a cartridge dropped in an empty chamber. My ex-military Mauser and Springfield both are CRF with capability to snap over. Push feed advocates point to extractors breaking more easily on CRF rifles but my Springfield has had no issues in forty years. And every round ever fired at the range was snap-over single shot cycled.

 

[IvW]

They did and took it too just below 2 hundred thousand psi. It didn’t blow up. I don’t remember all the actions they tested but it was the strongest. If was a 602.

Well there you go strong as can be