Rifle Actions (Ranked)

[rookhawk]

Of course this will be a slide thread dealing with CRF versus push feed. I think the debate of what is sufficient will go on forever, but one cannot debate this scenario:

"If someone has $50,000-$500,000 to spend on a bolt action rifle, what action type is it?" Answer: 100% of the bolt action rifles in that price point are CRF.

So we know which is better for those with infinite resources, because nobody would pay "Car money" or "house money" for a push feed. So then assuming someone's budget is $1000-$1500, which is better? Yup, exactly.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Best action? Belt fed mortar.

MK 19 40mm? CRF? LOL

 

[CoElkHunter]

Of course this will be a slide thread dealing with CRF versus push feed. I think the debate of what is sufficient will go on forever, but one cannot debate this scenario:

"If someone has $50,000-$500,000 to spend on a bolt action rifle, what action type is it?" Answer: 100% of the bolt action rifles in that price point are CRF.

So we know which is better for those with infinite resources, because nobody would pay "Car money" or "house money" for a push feed. So then assuming someone's budget is $1000-$1500, which is better? Yup, exactly.

I don't know? Some of the beautiful wood and engraved push feed R8s are probably over $20K? Maybe over $30K. For that kind of money, which I don't have, I'd personally be looking at a very nice used Rigby or equivalent bolt action. Maybe they would cost even WAY more though?

 

[rookhawk]

I don't know? Some of the beautiful wood and engraved push feed R8s are probably over $20K? Maybe over $30K. For that kind of money, which I don't have, I'd personally be looking at a very nice used Rigby or equivalent bolt action. Maybe they would cost even WAY more though?

There are nice CRF rifles starting at $250. My point was when you're the "spare no expense, I want the very finest bolt rifle" category they don't ask if you'd like to make it a push feed. It's going to be control round feed.

Since we've slid into this area, it might be worth explaining why push feeds are even a thing at all.

Vietnam war. Mid-1960s. They need sniper rifles. What do they use, pre-64 Winchesters. For the money, for the accuracy, for the military reliability, there was no better option. Winchester changed to a push feed and they sucked. The military tested them and the snipers wanted nothing to do with them. So it had to go out to tender. Only two respondents met the US sourcing requirements before they even went to functionality and reliability testing: Remington 700 and post-64 winchester.

Both sucked. But that was it, turd sandwich or a swift kick to the balls. The Rem 700 crappy pushfeed was slightly better than the terrible winchester push feed.

Fast forward 30-40-50 years, and everyone wanting to play GI Joe sniper wants a pic-railed gun that looks and smells like the "milspec" remington 700. Hence, people buying tacticool rem 700 styled guns, emulating a US military decision that never would have even occurred if the pre-64 winchester had remained in production, thus allowing the military to continue with their preferred weapon.

Part and parcel with CRF is also John Olin's ingenious 3-position safety which allows the safe load and unload of a gun while on partial safe, and fully removes the cocking piece from the sear when on safe.

Mauser invented it, everyone copied it, winchester perfected it.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

BSA No.1 (.177) springer pellet gun. With Limbsaver and 9-12 x 50 scope.

I bet that's your favorite buffalo rifle, right?

 

[HankBuck]

Of course this will be a slide thread dealing with CRF versus push feed. I think the debate of what is sufficient will go on forever, but one cannot debate this scenario:

"If someone has $50,000-$500,000 to spend on a bolt action rifle, what action type is it?" Answer: 100% of the bolt action rifles in that price point are CRF.

So we know which is better for those with infinite resources, because nobody would pay "Car money" or "house money" for a push feed. So then assuming someone's budget is $1000-$1500, which is better? Yup, exactly.

ROOKHAWK, I get that point on custom made bolt action but with that “Logic” every Top Sporting Clays or skeet Shooter would be using a Holland & Holland SxS - but None do and most World Champions are using a much cheaper ($15k-$25k “junker”)…Kriegoff, Beretta, Caesar, Perazzi etc.. plus some “bargain priced” semi autos. Also, don’t most of the top Bench Rest shooters use mostly push feed actions?

 

[Doug Hamilton]

ROOKHAWK, I get that point on custom made bolt action but with that “Logic” every Top Sporting Clays or skeet Shooter would be using a Holland & Holland SxS - but None do and most World Champions are using a much cheaper ($15k-$25k “junker”)…Kriegoff, Beretta, Caesar, Perazzi etc.. plus some “bargain priced” semi autos. Also, don’t most of the top Bench Rest shooters use mostly push feed actions?

Has anyone ever been stomped by a paper target when their rifle failed to feed?

 

[HankBuck]

Has anyone ever been stomped by a paper target when their rifle failed to feed?

DOUG: NO, paper rarely poses a Danger - but now you’re moving the Goal Posts a few yards - the discussion was that the most expensive Custom rifles were all CRF = they must be proof that CRF is the BEST action. I agree it’s the “safest in a DG—charge type situation”…. but they aren’t the fastest to cycle and are not the most accurate so the term “BEST” could be impacted by the application they are being used for.

 

[rookhawk]

ROOKHAWK, I get that point on custom made bolt action but with that “Logic” every Top Sporting Clays or skeet Shooter would be using a Holland & Holland SxS - but None do and most World Champions are using a much cheaper ($15k-$25k “junker”)…Kriegoff, Beretta, Caesar, Perazzi etc.. plus some “bargain priced” semi autos. Also, don’t most of the top Bench Rest shooters use mostly push feed actions?

Not really. The most expensive clays guns will never be made by H&H and will never use action and ejector designs from H&H either. H&H patented the 7 pin sidelock and the south gate ejector. The guns used on the clays range are overbuilt for longevity and are overweight for a predictable slow glide through the target. You can thank Misters Anson, Deeley, and Edge for all those actions and forends and ejectors, all were employed by Westley Richards.

Bench rest shooters use push feeds that have sleds in them, preventing use of a magazine. That’s a range safety rule requiring a sled, and you cannot reliably load a CRF by dropping one down the pipe, they need to be loaded from the magazine. The best tuned CRF might handle 1000 improper loadings into the chamber rather than the magazine before the extractor spring breaks. It’s just not how they were designed. Long range single shot competition shooting needs the inferiority of the push feed for direct loading, and cannot utilize the magazine of the CRF. They also would never let their uncrimped ammo succumb to recoil in a magazine, so that eliminates a CRF mag load as well, even if permitted on the range.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Not really. The most expensive clays guns will never be made by H&H and will never use action and ejector designs from H&H either. H&H patented the 7 pin sidelock and the south gate ejector. The guns used on the clays range are overbuilt for longevity and are overweight for a predictable slow glide through the target. You can thank Misters Anson, Deeley, and Edge for all those actions and forends and ejectors, all were employed by Westley Richards.

Bench rest shooters use push feeds that have sleds in them, preventing use of a magazine. That’s a range safety rule requiring a sled, and you cannot reliably load a CRF by dropping one down the pipe, they need to be loaded from the magazine. The best tuned CRF might handle 1000 improper loadings into the chamber rather than the magazine before the extractor spring breaks. It’s just not how they were designed. Long range single shot competition shooting needs the inferiority of the push feed for direct loading, and cannot utilize the magazine of the CRF. They also would never let their uncrimped ammo succumb to recoil in a magazine, so that eliminates a CRF mag load as well, even if permitted on the range.

I can replace the extractor on my Mauser or Springfield in less than three minutes, probably less than two if I didn't have to go find the new extractor. I don't see that unlikely event being much of an impediment to my using them for competitive shooting. Of course those military guns WERE "designed" to snap over. A soldier's life might depend on it. After thousands of rounds the extractor on push feed is just as likely to fail. Probably more likely to fail. Push feed extractors must snap over EVERY round, even ones loaded from the magazine. CRF doesn't have to snap over on shells loaded from the magazine. Can anyone replace an extractor or spring on a Rem 700 in three minutes? I don't think so.

I will argue that my 404 Mauser 98 cycles as smoothly as any push feed in any caliber. I posted a YouTube a while back of me cycling four rounds and another of me drop loading and snapping over a couple of rounds. I cannot see how it could be done any quicker or with any less effort.

Hank, you're wrong ... somewhat anyway. My A5 shotgun is not pure push feed because the ejector is not in the bolt head. It's at the back of the bolt track on the receiver.

 

[HankBuck]

Not really. The most expensive clays guns will never be made by H&H and will never use action and ejector designs from H&H either. H&H patented the 7 pin sidelock and the south gate ejector. The guns used on the clays range are overbuilt for longevity and are overweight for a predictable slow glide through the target. You can thank Misters Anson, Deeley, and Edge for all those actions and forends and ejectors, all were employed by Westley Richards.

Bench rest shooters use push feeds that have sleds in them, preventing use of a magazine. That’s a range safety rule requiring a sled, and you cannot reliably load a CRF by dropping one down the pipe, they need to be loaded from the magazine. The best tuned CRF might handle 1000 improper loadings into the chamber rather than the magazine before the extractor spring breaks. It’s just not how they were designed. Long range single shot competition shooting needs the inferiority of the push feed for direct loading, and cannot utilize the magazine of the CRF. They also would never let their uncrimped ammo succumb to recoil in a magazine, so that eliminates a CRF mag load as well, even if permitted on the range.

ROOKHAWK: I will yield to your far superior knowledge of the mechanics & details of the inner workings of a CRF action…(I barely know how to load & shoot one) and I appreciate your analysis and even more so the ability to “shift focus” from your earlier assertion that CRF “sparing No expense…etc” CRF correlates to “Finest rifles” and I will NOW be very specific - CRF is NOT better then PF - it is preferred for some applications and hunting DG is one of them. I am not claiming CRF are not accurate but If CRF was “more Accurate” or even “as accurate” then Bench rest shooters would be using them and “loading differently” would Not deter them — in BR competitions a 1/10” of an inch matters and no competitor would give that up if they believed one action gave an advantage over the other - they must believe Push Feed is better for Bench shooting beyond the ease of loading. Your comment regarding “uncrimped ammo succumb to recoil in a magazine” is interesting but I’m not sure they would ever need to have a extra round in the magazine - while they fire one in the chamber?? as I “think” time between shots in a BR competition is several minutes or more. Anyway, I’ve learned from your Posts and found them interesting and informative — I have nothing of value left to add….I’m just Not an expert in this area and just added a few of my thoughts and assumptions.

 

[HankBuck]

I can replace the extractor on my Mauser or Springfield in less than three minutes, probably less than two if I didn't have to go find the new extractor. I don't see that unlikely event being much of an impediment to my using them for competitive shooting. Of course those military guns WERE "designed" to snap over. A soldier's life might depend on it. After thousands of rounds the extractor on push feed is just as likely to fail. Probably more likely to fail. Push feed extractors must snap over EVERY round, even ones loaded from the magazine. CRF doesn't have to snap over on shells loaded from the magazine. Can anyone replace an extractor or spring on a Rem 700 in three minutes? I don't think so.

I will argue that my 404 Mauser 98 cycles as smoothly as any push feed in any caliber. I posted a YouTube a while back of me cycling four rounds and another of me drop loading and snapping over a couple of rounds. I cannot see how it could be done any quicker or with any less effort.

Hank, you're wrong ... somewhat anyway. My A5 shotgun is not pure push feed because the ejector is not in the bolt head. It's at the back of the bolt track on the receiver.

Ontario __- How did an A5 semi auto shotgun enter this discussion?

 

[rookhawk]

ROOKHAWK: I will yield to your far superior knowledge of the mechanics & details of the inner workings of a CRF action…(I barely know how to load & shoot one) and I appreciate your analysis and even more so the ability to “shift focus” from your earlier assertion that CRF “sparing No expense…etc” CRF correlates to “Finest rifles” and I will NOW be very specific - CRF is NOT better then PF - it is preferred for some applications and hunting DG is one of them. I am not claiming CRF are not accurate but If CRF was “more Accurate” or even “as accurate” then Bench rest shooters would be using them and “loading differently” would Not deter them — in BR competitions a 1/10” of an inch matters and no competitor would give that up if they believed one action gave an advantage over the other - they must believe Push Feed is better for Bench shooting beyond the ease of loading. Your comment regarding “uncrimped ammo succumb to recoil in a magazine” is interesting but I’m not sure they would ever need to have a extra round in the magazine - while they fire one in the chamber?? as I “think” time between shots in a BR competition is several minutes or more. Anyway, I’ve learned from your Posts and found them interesting and informative — I have nothing of value left to add….I’m just Not an expert in this area and just added a few of my thoughts and assumptions.

@HankBuck I think you have a perfectly clear understanding of CRF vs PF. Neither is more accurate than one another, and I would wager based on our society’s preferences for wiz bang marketing, accuracy is what 99% of consumers believe is the sole consideration. So if you’re trying to appease accuracy at the cheapest price point, PF is plenty good enough. If you’re trying to create interest in shooting all day off a bench or laying prone under perfectly stable conditions, PF will do it just fine for cheaper. If you want to do the least amount of “bruising“ to your precious single-shot, single load ammo, PF on a sled pushed into a barrel will do it Cheaper.

CRF picks up the ammo from a magazine better. CRF can be loaded and fired without directional gravity (e.g. you can load it upside down or tilted at any angle). CRF has much more leverage on the cartridge to get a stuck cartridge out of the barrel once fired. CRF Costs a lot more to manufacture. CRF triggers, cocking pieces, and safeties are much more expensive to manufacture than a rem700 push feed trigger group with integrated safety.

The other advantage for the range of a Rem700 Push Feed is the “Remage” hybrid where you use a Savage barrel nut to remove and replace barrels quickly, and adjust headspace very easily. There isn‘t a CRF shortcut for these gimmicks that allow people to burn through barrels and swap them out in their garage with $40 in tools.

PF provides an entire ecosystem of cheap and maybe “good enough for the range / competition” other considerations that go into triggers, magazine sleds, safeties or safety-less guns, etc.

CRF‘s ecosystem is built around reliability under adverse conditions, wartime infantry use when bolt guns were the choice, certainty of function for snipers was CRF until none existed as US manufacturers for the Army and USMC, etc. When you’re on a safari or an elk hunt, you know that shots are rarely prone, but are usually uncomfortably taken off sticks, off a pine bough, or free hand…that’s where CRF shines for loading. On those same hunts that can be very hot, that’s where CRF extraction shines. On those same hunts, that’s where the additional features of CRF safeties is incredibly handy.

Everything CRF costs more and has a considerable benefit for hunting applications. It’s interesting to note that every once in awhile a PF safari rifle comes around for sale, and boy to they languish. There was a Griffin & Howe 375HH built on a PF for sale for $4000 for years and years, whereas it would have sold in a month or less at $8000 if it was a CRF. The market for high quality hunting rifles demands a CRF.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

@HankBuck I think you have a perfectly clear understanding of CRF vs PF. Neither is more accurate than one another, and I would wager based on our society’s preferences for wiz bang marketing, accuracy is what 99% of consumers believe is the sole consideration. So if you’re trying to appease accuracy at the cheapest price point, PF is plenty good enough. If you’re trying to create interest in shooting all day off a bench or laying prone under perfectly stable conditions, PF will do it just fine for cheaper. If you want to do the least amount of “bruising“ to your precious single-shot, single load ammo, PF on a sled pushed into a barrel will do it Cheaper.

CRF picks up the ammo from a magazine better. CRF can be loaded and fired without directional gravity (e.g. you can load it upside down or tilted at any angle). CRF has much more leverage on the cartridge to get a stuck cartridge out of the barrel once fired. CRF Costs a lot more to manufacture. CRF triggers, cocking pieces, and safeties are much more expensive to manufacture than a rem700 push feed trigger group with integrated safety.

The other advantage for the range of a Rem700 Push Feed is the “Remage” hybrid where you use a Savage barrel nut to remove and replace barrels quickly, and adjust headspace very easily. There isn‘t a CRF shortcut for these gimmicks that allow people to burn through barrels and swap them out in their garage with $40 in tools.

PF provides an entire ecosystem of cheap and maybe “good enough for the range / competition” other considerations that go into triggers, magazine sleds, safeties or safety-less guns, etc.

CRF‘s ecosystem is built around reliability under adverse conditions, wartime infantry use when bolt guns were the choice, certainty of function for snipers was CRF until none existed as US manufacturers for the Army and USMC, etc. When you’re on a safari or an elk hunt, you know that shots are rarely prone, but are usually uncomfortably taken off sticks, off a pine bough, or free hand…that’s where CRF shines for loading. On those same hunts that can be very hot, that’s where CRF extraction shines. On those same hunts, that’s where the additional features of CRF safeties is incredibly handy.

Everything CRF costs more and has a considerable benefit for hunting applications. It’s interesting to note that every once in awhile a PF safari rifle comes around for sale, and boy to they languish. There was a Griffin & Howe 375HH built on a PF for sale for $4000 for years and years, whereas it would have sold in a month or less at $8000 if it was a CRF. The market for high quality hunting rifles demands a CRF.

All good points clearly articulated. Just because most competitive shooters supposedly prefer push feed actions does not necessarily translate as those actions being more accurate. If I suddenly decided to take up competitive shooting (which would be a fool's errand considering my advanced years), I would probably look for a push feed action to build. They're easier to find and a lot cheaper. Also, it seems almost a sin to waste a good hunting action turning it into a single shot paper target tool. Anyway, I would rather watch paint dry than spend the day at a rifle range listening to hundreds of guys shooting noisy rifles. I'm sure I'll never own a push feed because I'm a hunter who can afford quality rifles. But maybe push feed would be a useful build for shooting prairie dogs. Hmmm.