The old crf vs prf debate....

[IvW]

Last question first. I don't care, I like and appreciate both action types. For DG I lean towards CRF, for military , Push Feed, for general hunting any, I like most of them.

In this post you are talking about the design and I agree by design the CRF should not double feed but as I said they do. Also nowhere have I said that CRF stuff up because of design. In the real world they do fuck up period. To be clear, I say again, not every CRF fucks up, I would say very few fuck up, but they do, any firearm type does and not just because the person is incompetent, but also because the firearm is faulty.

"You on the other hand appear to be trashing CRF actions due to incompetent/incorrect use by somebody who is short stroking a CRF action or used a damaged CRF action."
Like I keep say read what I write. I am not trashing your beloved CRF. I am merely pointing out that they do stuff up and as so much bull dust is written about how infallible they are, when it simply is not true. Note! that the action may not be damaged as you say by could be faulty due to manufacture, worn and a part need replacing. Now you canned some PF for the very same reason if memory serves.

"Short stroking and any resultant issue are as a result of incorrect use by the operator and has nothing to do with the action type."
Show me where I have said short stroking is because of action design. Please if you are going to have a shot at me read what I write. Because when you write this type of garbage and imply I said it, you really do yourself a disservice.

He said, you said, I said, I imply,Show me..... blah blah blah.....

I am not trying to take any shots at you, merely giving my opinion. If I was trying to imply that you mentioned something you did not I apologize as that is/was not the intention. You do rather seem to be getting a bit over excited with regards to the issue.

I have never seen or know of any PH I have worked with in camp that uses a rifle with a push feed action and never ever a rem M700 for DG back-up work.

Perhaps the gap or expectation of a rifle used for this application is totally different, but in my opinion it would also be unwise for a client to choose a PF instead of a proven CRF when hunting DG.

I prefer CRF actioned rifles as in my experience they are much more reliable(I use Brno ZKK 601, ZKK 602 and Brno Mod 21). Never had any issues with any of them.
222 Rem-Sako full length extractor
243 Win-ZKK 601
7x57mm-Brno Mod 21
375 H&H-ZKK 602 custom
375 H&H-ZKK 602 original
500 Jeff-ZKK 602 custom

Seen many issues with push feeds, my own as well as ones brought over by clients.

Seeing as I am writing garbage let me finish with this.

Any rifle can malfunction. Many malfunctions are because of operator error rather than design issues. Some rifle types have serious design issues.

CRF in good condition fail less often than PRF in same condition.

 

[BRICKBURN]

...........
Seeing as I am writing garbage let me finish with this.............

I have never encountered this from you yet.

Not being a gun nut and certainly not a collector, I value an opinion from someone who has actually handled more than one rifle in his lifetime.

Until about a dozen years ago, if you would have asked me what controlled feed was I would have looked at you like you had two heads.

 

[Desert Dog]

I prefer CRF on hunting rifles and PF on target / precision rifles. I personally find CRF more reliable and less susceptible to user err under stress. I think PF rifles have more inherent accuracy and allow single feeding off the bench, which make them great in that application. Also, although the factory Rem700 has a plethora of hit-and-miss quality issues, high-quality aftermarket 700-clone actions are easy to machine and accessorize, which has really added to the proliferation of PF platforms.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter 99% of the time. Really, I prefer the 3-position safety on a hunting rifle, and my good rifles with that feature happen to be CRF.

 

[flat8]

I like both. In an area with DG, I'd use a CRF for all the reasons mentioned above. But in North America outside of the Northern Rockies or Alaska, I'd be using one of my PF guns. My two most accurate guns are both pushers.

 

[Rule 303]

IvW, I was giving this thread some thought today. I am not sure that we are not misunderstanding one another to some degree because of our different versions of English. That is Aussies have some saying that are the same as found in the US but they have totally different meanings.

I may seem to be getting over excited about this, most probably it was me becoming frustrated that you seemed not to understand what I was saying.

"Any rifle can malfunction. Many malfunctions are because of operator error rather than design issues. Some rifle types have serious design issues."

I agree in part with this. I see malfunctions as cased by what you mention and worn, faulty or badly manufactured -I do not mean design -parts. For example: 1)The Rem 700 is a sound reliable design. The quality of manufacturer now days ensures I wont buy another one. 2) A M98 a mate had in my early years would fail to extract sometimes or drop the empty case onto the top of the next round. I found out years latter that this was due to a faulty or badly made extractor. None of this is due to the design.

I agree that CRF should fail less than PF because, among other things, they have a larger extractor claw that does not rotate so should not wear as those on most PF do.

The only rifle that I have that has never failed on me in any way is a SMLE. Does this mean they will not fail, hell no, same with any rifle design.

 

[Rule 303]

Lol. Just noticed. Where else could we have a discussion between a South African PH (IvW i truly hope you are a Boer and not a Brit) and an Aussie quoting Breaker Morant.

Got to love the Brits. It took true nuance to execute Morant for battlefield excesses while systematically killing 50,000 or so women and children in concentration camps.

Your not wrong on the last paragraph.
Re the first para

Mind you I think the current rendition Rule 5.56 should be applied to a lot of politicians and media types

 

[Anthony George]

I'm very lucky to be able to hunt 80 to over 100 days a year as a recreational hunter
I chase the Big Heavy coastal Bulls here
My main rifles are Push Feed Winchester M70s in either 416 Ruger or 458WM, both with heavy for Calibre Woodleigh RN SN

Not once have I had a mis feed or malfunction with these push feed actions.

But in saying that a shit like ad of in field practice and a few tricks as a given

All easy to learn and definitely help
Out when under pressure to finish the job again hand

 

[boldo 42]

So where does my Sako .500J fit into this discussion? CRF or PF?

She's a push.

 

[IvW]

But in saying that a shit like ad of in field practice and a few tricks as a given
?

I just cycle the bolt as fast as I need to on my CRF's no need for tricks.

....the job again hand
?

 

[Scrumbag]

I think a lot of this discussion about whether push feeds fail centres around Remington making bad rifles rather than the design being poor or it being a function of push feed.

A good buddy of mine has a BAT actioned M700 clone and it’s a really slick piece of kit. Lots of deer hunters I know use push feed actions from Sako, Tikka and Howa, all are push feed. I prefer CRF and all my rifles do this and I think under stress, a CRF with that large extractor is better at pulling an awkward casing out of the chamber than a push feed design

Scrummy

 

[Anthony George]

I think a lot of this discussion about whether push feeds fail centres around Remington making bad rifles rather than the design being poor or it being a function of push feed.

A good buddy of mine has a BAT actioned M700 clone and it’s a really slick piece of kit. Lots of deer hunters I know use push feed actions from Sako, Tikka and Howa, all are push feed. I prefer CRF and all my rifles do this and I think under stress, a CRF with that large extractor is better at pulling an awkward casing out of the chamber than a push feed design

Scrummy

Agreed and yes the Big Mauser style extractor is a bonus with positive extraction under pressure

Each action has it's own merit

Then there are the Oddities ....

The Ruger M77 for starters is a Push feed and claw extractor

Guys freak out when they speak of the benefits of their Beloved M77 CRF and then find out it's actually Push Feed

Great rifles though

Note Ruger M77 not to be confused with M77 MK2
M77 are PF and so were the early M77 MK2s until Ruger changed the bolt face to make them a true CRF

 

[Scrumbag]

Thanks for the info on Rugers. I hadn't realised that. Mind you, you don't see so many of them over here (UK).

Scrummy

 

[Hank2211]

Not sure we really need to continue this thread . . . but it seems I can't help myself . . .

The Field is a magazine published monthly in the UK. It calls itself "The Bible of fieldsports for 165 years" and to the extent any magazine can claim that, it can.

The September 2018 issue contains an article entitled "London Rifles Stil Hit the Mark." The first page shows a picture of two hunters lying prone, one ready to take shot in the Scottish highlands. The caption reads "Deerstalking in the Highlands requires the accuracy of a controlled feed-action rifle."

Note that this states that CRF improves accuracy, not just feeding. It then goes on to praise the three main London rifle makers - Purdey, Rigby and Holland & Holland, all of which use Mauser CRF actions in their rifles.

To quote my children, "just saying."

 

[Anthony George]

Very intetesting

 

[Neale]

I may weigh in on this discussion. I have one very real example with a push feed Remington. I was hunting a wild bull (Bovine) and after a long stalk to get within range I decided to chamber a round. This was a reload and I made the mistake of not running the rounds through the chamber beforehand to check if they chambered easily.
This particular round must have been a little oversize and it jammed going into the chamber. I could not close the bolt and so I hit it (several times) with the palm of my hand. It would still not close and now it would not extract either to get another round into the chamber. There I was with a bull in front of me and no way to shoot it. I went home empty handed.
The extractor on the Remington was in good order as I had just had it replaced. With a CRF I may have been able to extract the oversize round and chamber another.
I do like push feed though and I should have chambered all my reloads to check for feeding.

 

[Rule 303]

Just sayin

Not sure we really need to continue this thread . . . but it seems I can't help myself . . .

The Field is a magazine published monthly in the UK. It calls itself "The Bible of fieldsports for 165 years" and to the extent any magazine can claim that, it can.

The September 2018 issue contains an article entitled "London Rifles Stil Hit the Mark." The first page shows a picture of two hunters lying prone, one ready to take shot in the Scottish highlands. The caption reads "Deerstalking in the Highlands requires the accuracy of a controlled feed-action rifle."

Note that this states that CRF improves accuracy, not just feeding. It then goes on to praise the three main London rifle makers - Purdey, Rigby and Holland & Holland, all of which use Mauser CRF actions in their rifles.

To quote my children, "just saying."

Just saying, the accuracy records are generally held by push feed actions and most of the current push feed, even the el cheapos shoot way more accurately then ever before. For a modern rifle not to group under an inch now days is not good.

I have a mate who has two of the new Rigbys, and great rifles they are and they produce good groups but not as tight as my Browning X Bolt, Steyr Prohunters, Rem 700's or my CZ550 416 Rigby, yes, I know it is a CRF.

 

[Hank2211]

Just sayin


Just saying, the accuracy records are generally held by push feed actions and most of the current push feed, even the el cheapos shoot way more accurately then ever before. For a modern rifle not to group under an inch now days is not good.

I have a mate who has two of the new Rigbys, and great rifles they are and they produce good groups but not as tight as my Browning X Bolt, Steyr Prohunters, Rem 700's or my CZ550 416 Rigby, yes, I know it is a CRF.

Hey, it's not me . . . it's just the bible.

And as for your experiences, let's just call those the exceptions which prove the rule.

Just saying!

 

[bruce moulds]

also to be considered.
2 lug actions have better extraction due to the gearing of a longer extraction cam, than 3 lug actions.
for similar reason they will force a tight case to chamber more readily than 3 lugs will.
also the cocking cam is longer and is therefore lower geared, making lifting the bolt easier.
anyone who has ever ripped a little bit out of a case rim when a small extractor tears the rim of a stuck case would always prefer a larger extractor.
these things could get your attention when you are nicro seconds from becoming a brown stain.
bruce.

 

[BenKK]

Do magazines ever get the poetry flowing about products from sponsors? Could this be at play here?

 

[bruce moulds]

ben,
i have ripped part of the rim off in a rem 700, leaving a case stuck in the chamber.
only once.
probably part of the issues i mentioned can be dealt with by not loading ammo to high pressures, and adequately sizing cases.
however i now prefer controlled round feed 2 lug actions.
actions i have include dakota 76, mauser, and m 70 win.
i have always thought mauser is up there if a case ruptures as well.
bruce.