Who makes a good CRF builders action these days?

[ImNumberOne]

There’s fewer and fewer CRF actions available every year. Last year, defiance discontinued their CRF upgrade, and a year or two ago Mausingfield went out of business. As far as I could tell Montana doesn’t sell bare actions, or even a single rifle with a wood stock anymore, and Mauser’s 98 barreled actions are about as expensive than 2 fully custom rifles combined for some reason.

Is there any option for new manufactured true CRF actions anymore? The Zermatt ones aren’t really true CRF either, as they snap over the case as you close the bolt, meaning while unlikely, it’s technically possible to fail to extract a stuck case from the extractor snapping over the rim.

Is it too much to ask for just a basic CRF action for less than 3 grand, without having to buy an entire rifle and throw away all of the parts except the action? You used to be able to just buy a Defiance and for $150 upgrade it to true CRF for a whole action, of really high quality, for $1500-1750 ish.

There’s a lot of reasons to like controlled round feed even outside of DG hunting. Double feeding is impossible, which happens frequently on poorly built push feeds like the ruger Americans. You can more quickly eject all the rounds from a magazine, without having to do the entire bolt stroke or open up the bottom on hinged floor plate designs. You can slowly pull the bolt back without dropping the case when shooting off a bench with expensive brass you don’t want to ding up with their no spring design.

Like I know it’s more expensive but Winchester is able to sell entire CRF rifles with 3 position safety and a wood stock for like $1500, how hard is it to make just a builders action for under 2k?

If we band together and yell loud enough you think we could get Winchester to go the bergara route and offer a builders or barreled action?

This post is mainly a rant more than a question, feel free to use this place as a way to vent your frustrations on something you want to see available as well. I’m glad Mauser/rigby still exist, but as a professional woodworker I really want to build my own gun off of a quality action, and fit the stock to myself, and not spend 10 grand on just the action. The rifle I want doesn’t exist so I want to make it myself.

Ok,
I hunt, but I don't know what a "CRF" is, please educate me as to what it stands for.

Thank you.

 

[Rifleman97]

Ok,
I hunt, but I don't know what a "CRF" is, please educate me as to what it stands for.

Thank you.

It stands for Controlled Round Feed.

Mauser 98, Springfield 1903, Winchester 52 and 70, CZ 550 are all controlled round feed.

It means that if you were to example, push a round halfway into the chamber, but suddenly pull the bolt backwards, the round would eject. In a push feed, the round would not eject upon this action, requiring you to push the round all the way into the chamber and then close the bolt to be able to eject the round as intended. CRF way also means it’s possible to have perfect feeding (assuming the action is designed well and regulated properly) even when upside down, sideways, etc as the round is controlled for the entire stroke of the bolt.

Controlled round feed usually, albeit not always, use large claws that hold 1/4 or more of the rim of the round, compared to the Remington 700 where the extractor holds like 1/8” of the rim. This means if you shoot a load that turned out to be very hot and you get a partially stuck case, the larger extractor has more meat on the rim to provide extraction without ripping off some of the rim, or in the case of the 700’s weak extractors, sometimes just overcoming the rim and failing to extract leaving a stuck case in the chamber.

CRF also often have mechanical ejectors, meaning there’s just essentially a pin that sticks out, and as you pull the bolt backwards the case catches on that pin and pushes the case outward. On a push feed 700 style, there is a spring assisted plunger that keeps a constant force pushing the case outward. So if you pull the bolt back too slow, you’ll get a failure to eject and the case drops and you now have to dig it out of the action. With a CRF pulled back slowly, the case ejects slowly. If you pull the action back really hard, the case flies out up to 6+ feet away. The benefit of the slow pull for me is being able to grab my expensive brass easily, without letting it get dinged up by flying away, and without the annoyance of having to dig the annoyance of digging the brass out of the action.

In terms of number, I think there’s a lot of benefits to CRF. But in terms of actual hunting use, with someone who is well practiced, those benefits admittedly mean very little 99.99% of the time. But they’re all benefits I personally enjoy as I’m used to having them on more than half of my rifles, and having those benefits is something I’m willing to pay extra for. Most shooters are not. And that’s fine, I just would like to have some options that are less than 15 grand, but suit my preferences better than the push feeds you can get for much cheaper.

I’ll be the first to admit CRF isn’t necessary. Many dangerous game have been taken by Remington 700’s, ruger no 1 single shots, and other “less ideal” guns, with great success. But the CRF was made famous for its reliability in Africa and its history and benefits make it very desirable to people like me. I’ll probably never hunt dangerous game in Africa, but I just really like CRF, and while we’re in the minority I know I’m not the only one.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Most, but not all, CRF rifles will "snap over" on a cartridge dropped in the the open action above an empty magazine. It is my understanding that all push feed actions will snap over. This could be an important feature in a dangerous game rifle (particularly if the dangerous game shoots back!). I don't want to be fumbling with trying to push a round into the magazine of my empty rifle if a pissed off and badly wounded buffalo is intent on getting his revenge.

It is interesting that virtually all Mauser clones used in combat were designed to snap over, yet the magazine followers were also designed to block the bolt opened when the magazine was empty, thereby negating the advantage of snap over in a heated firefight. The soldier still had to push a round under the claw to remove the follower block. First thing most of us do when building on a military CRF rifle is modify the follower so the bolt can close on an empty magazine.

 

[roklok]

I must disagree again with a couple items above. 1st, a good push feed will feed upside down, sideways, etc just as well. Designed properly, the feed rails on the action control the round until it is chambered far enough to not be able to fall out. I have tested this with my 700s, in fact my 700 in .35 Whelen fed BETTER than my Win 70 CRF 30-06 upside down. That Winchester 70 in 30-06 was also only CRF when it fed from the right rail. When feeding from the left rail the round was uncontrolled as it left the magazine. The round from left rail was not captured under the extractor until late in the feed cycle. I have only ever owned that one M70, but it was only CRF half the time. I appreciate and use both styles, Rem 700s and Mausers and Enfields that are CRF.

Second, unless there is a problem, a plunger ejector will eject a case no matter the speed the bolt is worked (one of the reasons you quoted as preferring CRF so as not to have to chase brass). When the mouth of the case clears the front receiver ring, the case gets ejected. It doesn't care how fast or slow the bolt is worked, the spring tension is the same no matter the bolt velocity. If the case is not being ejected with a plunger ejector, that usually points to an extractor issue. I have seen this happen with a Rem 788, where the case would remain in action. So, it can happen yes, but in general it is indicative of problems with an individual rifle and not the design of the plunger ejector. On the other hand, I have had my Mausers fail to eject when operating the bolt slowly. If the case does not impact the standing ejector with enough speed, it simply angles the case slightly, but does not flip it out of the receiver. This necessitates plucking the case out by hand. In a shit hits the fan scenario, if the bolt is withdrawn completely to the bolt stop, but the velocity slows at the rearmost travel, this can leave a case in the rifle even though technically it wasn't short stroked. For reliable ejection on a CRF, the bolt must be withdrawn briskly the full travel, so the standing ejector can flip the case out. On a short stroke situation or a near short stroke where bolt velocity slows, a standing ejector is more likely to cause issues than a plunger ejector that ejects earlier in the cycle as soon as case mouth clears front receiver ring. If the bolt velocity slows at the rear even with full travel, it can lead to a double feed caused by a fail to eject.

I have been a voracious reader of hunting magazines, books and articles since I was a boy in the 1980s. I do not recall hardly a mention of the importance of CRF in all that reading. This subject seems to have taken a life of its own within the internet echo chambers in the last 20 or so years. Warren Page hunted all manner of DG with a Remington 721 in 375 Weatherby, reportedly shooting it so much it had to be rebarreled and not having an issue with ejector or extractor. Harry Selby used a push feed M70 .458 in later years, I have recently watched York with Dalton and York put a push feed M70 to very good use. In short I think its a topic that is blown way out of proportion and misunderstood, propagated by erroneous information that gets repeated. I regularly hunt with actions of both types. As a resident, I have killed Alaska's big bears with no back-up using Remington 700s. Like many hunters, especially African hunters, I do have a deep appreciation of the craftsmanship, tradition, and quality of the rifles of the past and greatly enjoy shooting and hunting with Mausers, Remington 30, and Enfields. For hunting purposes, make sure your individual rifle is reliable and you can operate it well. There are many examples of each style of action that have issues. A proven reliable rifle that the operator is familiar with is much more important than what category the action falls into.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

The M1 Garand, M16, M14, AK47 etc. are all push feed and they are used for things that shoot back.

Paul

They shoot faster. That does not mean that they are as reliable when a single shot can be the difference between life and death.

 

[CoElkHunter]

I must disagree again with a couple items above. 1st, a good push feed will feed upside down, sideways, etc just as well. Designed properly, the feed rails on the action control the round until it is chambered far enough to not be able to fall out. I have tested this with my 700s, in fact my 700 in .35 Whelen fed BETTER than my Win 70 CRF 30-06 upside down. That Winchester 70 in 30-06 was also only CRF when it fed from the right rail. When feeding from the left rail the round was uncontrolled as it left the magazine. The round from left rail was not captured under the extractor until late in the feed cycle. I have only ever owned that one M70, but it was only CRF half the time. I appreciate and use both styles, Rem 700s and Mausers and Enfields that are CRF.

Second, unless there is a problem, a plunger ejector will eject a case no matter the speed the bolt is worked (one of the reasons you quoted as preferring CRF so as not to have to chase brass). When the mouth of the case clears the front receiver ring, the case gets ejected. It doesn't care how fast or slow the bolt is worked, the spring tension is the same no matter the bolt velocity. If the case is not being ejected with a plunger ejector, that usually points to an extractor issue. I have seen this happen with a Rem 788, where the case would remain in action. So, it can happen yes, but in general it is indicative of problems with an individual rifle and not the design of the plunger ejector. On the other hand, I have had my Mausers fail to eject when operating the bolt slowly. If the case does not impact the standing ejector with enough speed, it simply angles the case slightly, but does not flip it out of the receiver. This necessitates plucking the case out by hand. In a shit hits the fan scenario, if the bolt is withdrawn completely to the bolt stop, but the velocity slows at the rearmost travel, this can leave a case in the rifle even though technically it wasn't short stroked. For reliable ejection on a CRF, the bolt must be withdrawn briskly the full travel, so the standing ejector can flip the case out. On a short stroke situation or a near short stroke where bolt velocity slows, a standing ejector is more likely to cause issues than a plunger ejector that ejects earlier in the cycle as soon as case mouth clears front receiver ring. If the bolt velocity slows at the rear even with full travel, it can lead to a double feed caused by a fail to eject.

I have been a voracious reader of hunting magazines, books and articles since I was a boy in the 1980s. I do not recall hardly a mention of the importance of CRF in all that reading. This subject seems to have taken a life of its own within the internet echo chambers in the last 20 or so years. Warren Page hunted all manner of DG with a Remington 721 in 375 Weatherby, reportedly shooting it so much it had to be rebarreled and not having an issue with ejector or extractor. Harry Selby used a push feed M70 .458 in later years, I have recently watched York with Dalton and York put a push feed M70 to very good use. In short I think its a topic that is blown way out of proportion and misunderstood, propagated by erroneous information that gets repeated. I regularly hunt with actions of both types. As a resident, I have killed Alaska's big bears with no back-up using Remington 700s. Like many hunters, especially African hunters, I do have a deep appreciation of the craftsmanship, tradition, and quality of the rifles of the past and greatly enjoy shooting and hunting with Mausers, Remington 30, and Enfields. For hunting purposes, make sure your individual rifle is reliable and you can operate it well. There are many examples of each style of action that have issues. A proven reliable rifle that the operator is familiar with is much more important than what category the action falls into.

Very interesting.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Ok,
I hunt, but I don't know what a "CRF" is, please educate me as to what it stands for.

Thank you.

Don’t feel alone. Outside of this forum (probably some members too) most hunters wouldn’t know what a CRF action is if it bit them in the arse. Until becoming a AH member several years ago and with the exception of owning a tang safety Ruger M77 in the ‘70s I had no clue. I knew the action was different but didn’t know or care why. And, after reading threads/posts here, apparently THAT Ruger wasn’t a “true” CRF anyway. AH is a wealth of information from all the experts and experienced members/hunters here and they are willing to share their knowledge with all of us.

 

[Choupique]

That does not mean that they are as reliable when a single shot can be the difference between life and death.

A good push feed will aboslutely be more reliable than a shoddy CRF. It isn't black and white.

Functionally, a crf action that allows the extractor to snap over the rim in the chamber only gives you the advantage of double-feed protection and slight bit more bite on the rim than a push feed with a big extractor. They both will hold the rim well enough for you to have to beat the bolt open in the event of a stuck case, and you're getting stomped either way if that happens.

It is a difference, but I think much of the aura of the CRF design is based on comparison to a model 700, with its dinky extractor.

 

[Rifleman97]

I must disagree again with a couple items above. 1st, a good push feed will feed upside down, sideways, etc just as well. Designed properly, the feed rails on the action control the round until it is chambered far enough to not be able to fall out. I have tested this with my 700s, in fact my 700 in .35 Whelen fed BETTER than my Win 70 CRF 30-06 upside down. That Winchester 70 in 30-06 was also only CRF when it fed from the right rail. When feeding from the left rail the round was uncontrolled as it left the magazine. The round from left rail was not captured under the extractor until late in the feed cycle. I have only ever owned that one M70, but it was only CRF half the time. I appreciate and use both styles, Rem 700s and Mausers and Enfields that are CRF.

Second, unless there is a problem, a plunger ejector will eject a case no matter the speed the bolt is worked (one of the reasons you quoted as preferring CRF so as not to have to chase brass). When the mouth of the case clears the front receiver ring, the case gets ejected. It doesn't care how fast or slow the bolt is worked, the spring tension is the same no matter the bolt velocity. If the case is not being ejected with a plunger ejector, that usually points to an extractor issue. I have seen this happen with a Rem 788, where the case would remain in action. So, it can happen yes, but in general it is indicative of problems with an individual rifle and not the design of the plunger ejector. On the other hand, I have had my Mausers fail to eject when operating the bolt slowly. If the case does not impact the standing ejector with enough speed, it simply angles the case slightly, but does not flip it out of the receiver. This necessitates plucking the case out by hand. In a shit hits the fan scenario, if the bolt is withdrawn completely to the bolt stop, but the velocity slows at the rearmost travel, this can leave a case in the rifle even though technically it wasn't short stroked. For reliable ejection on a CRF, the bolt must be withdrawn briskly the full travel, so the standing ejector can flip the case out. On a short stroke situation or a near short stroke where bolt velocity slows, a standing ejector is more likely to cause issues than a plunger ejector that ejects earlier in the cycle as soon as case mouth clears front receiver ring. If the bolt velocity slows at the rear even with full travel, it can lead to a double feed caused by a fail to eject.

I have been a voracious reader of hunting magazines, books and articles since I was a boy in the 1980s. I do not recall hardly a mention of the importance of CRF in all that reading. This subject seems to have taken a life of its own within the internet echo chambers in the last 20 or so years. Warren Page hunted all manner of DG with a Remington 721 in 375 Weatherby, reportedly shooting it so much it had to be rebarreled and not having an issue with ejector or extractor. Harry Selby used a push feed M70 .458 in later years, I have recently watched York with Dalton and York put a push feed M70 to very good use. In short I think its a topic that is blown way out of proportion and misunderstood, propagated by erroneous information that gets repeated. I regularly hunt with actions of both types. As a resident, I have killed Alaska's big bears with no back-up using Remington 700s. Like many hunters, especially African hunters, I do have a deep appreciation of the craftsmanship, tradition, and quality of the rifles of the past and greatly enjoy shooting and hunting with Mausers, Remington 30, and Enfields. For hunting purposes, make sure your individual rifle is reliable and you can operate it well. There are many examples of each style of action that have issues. A proven reliable rifle that the operator is familiar with is much more important than what category the action falls into.

As I’ve said many times in this thread, no one actually “needs” a CRF. Especially me. And as I said, extraction is the same speed at any bolt release. But I guess I didn’t clarify “how” I pull cases out of the chamber when I’m shooting at the range being careful with my brass.

I hold my hand over the ejection port and slowly pull back the bolt. On my CRF, the brass hits my hand and I slowly continue to pull back (even though My hand is “pushing” the round as if to go back in the chamber) until the round is sticking out about as far as it can go. This is how I got used to “catching brass” and if I do the same thing with a push feed, by the time I can catch it the extractor is no longer holding onto it and it falls into the chamber.

If this site allows me to post a video I could potentially post a video of what I’m talking about on a weatherby vs my 70 if I have not explained it properly.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Here's how I catch my brass. Never leaves the table.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

A good push feed will aboslutely be more reliable than a shoddy CRF. It isn't black and white.

Functionally, a crf action that allows the extractor to snap over the rim in the chamber only gives you the advantage of double-feed protection and slight bit more bite on the rim than a push feed with a big extractor. They both will hold the rim well enough for you to have to beat the bolt open in the event of a stuck case, and you're getting stomped either way if that happens.

It is a difference, but I think much of the aura of the CRF design is based on comparison to a model 700, with its dinky extractor.

I have had a M70 PF in .30-06 for fifty years. It has never failed to function. Having said that, however, the one time a rifle did fail and someone came close to getting hurt was when a wounded buffalo jumped up in front of the PH and his rifle failed. It was a PF M 70 in .458 WM. I broke that bulls neck with my Whitworth Express in .458.

I think I'll stick with CRF rifles for DG.

 

[Russ16]

Regardless of reliability a rifle doesn't look right to me without a full length extractor on the side of the bolt. I grew up on Model 70s. Never saw a push feed until I was in high school. Push feed just doesn’t look right to me.

 

[roklok]

As I’ve said many times in this thread, no one actually “needs” a CRF. Especially me. And as I said, extraction is the same speed at any bolt release. But I guess I didn’t clarify “how” I pull cases out of the chamber when I’m shooting at the range being careful with my brass.

I hold my hand over the ejection port and slowly pull back the bolt. On my CRF, the brass hits my hand and I slowly continue to pull back (even though My hand is “pushing” the round as if to go back in the chamber) until the round is sticking out about as far as it can go. This is how I got used to “catching brass” and if I do the same thing with a push feed, by the time I can catch it the extractor is no longer holding onto it and it falls into the chamber.

If this site allows me to post a video I could potentially post a video of what I’m talking about on a weatherby vs my 70 if I have not explained it properly.

I agree with you on this, the plunger ejectors fling brass and is harder to capture it on the bench. I do prefer that aspect of a CRF with its standing ejector. Brass doesn't go flying unless you want it to. I felt the need to respond based on your response to a member that was inquiring as to what the designation "CRF" meant.

I think a lot of the argument for CRF over PF really isn't about the manner of feeding, but the general quality and robustness of the rifles associated with each type. I like the older Rem 700s (early 1990s and prior) but certainly admit there have been issues, particularly on newer production rifles. I actually prefer CRF actions myself, but think a lot of what has been written about the perceived advantages is nonsense.

 

[Rifleman97]

Regardless of reliability a rifle doesn't look right to me without a full length extractor on the side of the bolt. I grew up on Model 70s. Never saw a push feed until I was in high school. Push feed just doesn’t look right to me.

I am the exact same way, they don't look right without the extractor

 

[coreydb]

I refuse to accept the CRF rifle as the only capable rifle for dangerous game. Look to the double rifles-even the single shot rifles. I'm going to be Christ on the cross saying "hit me if you can find an open spot" here, but the Rem 700 mag actions can easily take up to the 416 Rem mag rounds reliably. How do I know? Personal desperation due to finances. I bought a left hand rem 700 mag action from Brownell's years ago, planning to build a 7rem mag. Time went by, no movement. Retirement finally came and I began hunting Africa annually. I accrued a healthy number of plains game trophies, so like everyone who preceded me, my sights eventually set on dangerous game. my first animal was cape buffalo with my brother's RH Sako .375HH. Damn near couldn't get any subsequent shots off because of the awkward bolt/scope configuration. I took my Rem action to a master gunsmith who modified the bolt, implanted a double claw extractor and away I went. I used box ammo initially, then developed my own loads. I shot over 200 rounds developing various load combos, shooting in temps (I live in Virginia) between 40 deg F and 102 deg F without a mishap. But, I NEVER exceeded loads beyond the recommended load data in either the Hornady or Lyman's hand books. I had subsequent success with this platform. We all know God loves babies and fools, but I ain't in Depends yet.

 

[Rifleman97]

I refuse to accept the CRF rifle as the only capable rifle for dangerous game. Look to the double rifles-even the single shot rifles. I'm going to be Christ on the cross saying "hit me if you can find an open spot" here, but the Rem 700 mag actions can easily take up to the 416 Rem mag rounds reliably. How do I know? Personal desperation due to finances. I bought a left hand rem 700 mag action from Brownell's years ago, planning to build a 7rem mag. Time went by, no movement. Retirement finally came and I began hunting Africa annually. I accrued a healthy number of plains game trophies, so like everyone who preceded me, my sights eventually set on dangerous game. my first animal was cape buffalo with my brother's RH Sako .375HH. Damn near couldn't get any subsequent shots off because of the awkward bolt/scope configuration. I took my Rem action to a master gunsmith who modified the bolt, implanted a double claw extractor and away I went. I used box ammo initially, then developed my own loads. I shot over 200 rounds developing various load combos, shooting in temps (I live in Virginia) between 40 deg F and 102 deg F without a mishap. But, I NEVER exceeded loads beyond the recommended load data in either the Hornady or Lyman's hand books. I had subsequent success with this platform. We all know God loves babies and fools, but I ain't in Depends yet.

I didn't even say I would be hunting dangerous game, and you'll find several posts here where I say as much, and also agree that you don't need CRF. But I like crf, I prefer it, and I would be willing to spend more money to have it. I just like the system better as it's what I have grown up on and grown to like and prefer.

The 700 can easily take a 416 rem mag, but I'm leaning towards building a 416 rigby, which the remington action can not do well. Not because it will blow up, it just is a small bolt diameter and would need the bolt face opened up further than I'd personally feel comfortable with. Many gunsmiths refuse to open up 700's to lapua bolt face as they have seen issues with doing so. Better quality actions can do it safer with the same bolt diameter, but ideally you would buy something with a .725 or .750 bolt rather than the remington .700 diameter bolt, and preferably a larger barrel tenon, 1.1-1.25 instead of the 1.0625. Again, you can get away with a remington 700, but its far from ideal for a 416 rigby, even ignoring the crf vs pf debate. Which I will again state, that I think a quality push feed is more than adequate, but I will continue to purchase CRF because I like them. And I will continue to buy and build guns that I don't have any need for, because I like them.

 

[coreydb]

Gotcha....Whenever anyone mentions CRF, it's always associated with dangerous game. Duly noted!

 

[Rifleman97]

Gotcha....Whenever anyone mentions CRF, it's always associated with dangerous game. Duly noted!

I figured as much, no harm no foul! People definitely need to know you don't need it as a hunter! Maybe an argument could be made about a PH needing one, but even then I think its more about the gun than the system itself! Even CRF rifles can jam or double feed if the action isn't timed correctly, or at a weird angle when the bolt is operated really slowly. But for this thread I think I found my next action, gonna call Defiance in a couple weeks (after the Colorado Gun Collector show, where I hope to sell a couple guns to start the ball rolling on this project) and ask about their upcoming rigby bolt face CRF Deviant

 

[SaintPanzer]

I feel like I'm in a bar with a bunch of guys yelling "Less Filling" and then another bunch of guys yell "Tastes Great!".

 

[Rifleman97]

I feel like I'm in a bar with a bunch of guys yelling "Less Filling" and then another bunch of guys yell "Tastes Great!".

"Who makes a good steak these days?"

"Steak isn't necessary, a quality salmon gets the job done just fine"

"sure that's true but... I want a steak?"