Who makes a good CRF builders action these days?

[SaintPanzer]

"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?"

Yeah, but it's getting even worse than that:

"You don't need a steak, the salmon has just as much, if not more protein."

"But I'm looking for a steak."

"Have you considered the Omega-3 fatty acids in the salmon?"

"But I'm looking for a steak."

"You know, you can prepare a salmon just like a steak. You can grill it, broil it..."

"But, steak."

"You're probably one of those people who put ketchup on a steak, aren't you? You don't put ketchup on a salmon..."

"I don't even like ketchup, but I still want a steak."

"Well, this is a wild-caught salmon, not a farm raised salmon, so..."

 

[roklok]

Nobody is telling him that he doesn't want or need whatever action (steak) he wants. What is being corrected are untruths about the perceived advantages of a CRF action, especially in light of a member asking what CRF means. This is how this crap gets propagated in the internet echo chambers. Things such as "double feeds are impossible", not a "true CRF" if extractor snaps over rim, when most every every CRF design (1917 Enfield, Springfield 1903, Winchester 70, New Mausers etc) other than the original Mausers will do so. "Push feed plunger ejectors will leave brass in action when bolt worked slow", when it is precisely the opposite, standing ejectors on a CRF will leave brass in action when worked slow. This kinda BS gets echoed and passed on by those who don't know. Then guys think CRF actions are infallible, and express surprise and dismay when a video surfaces of one causing problems. I like and prefer CRF Mausers and Enfield based actions, but also realize that they are not magical. Have the steak, have the salmon, just don't be part of the problem of passing on bogus information.

 

[Rifleman97]

Nobody is telling him that he doesn't want or need whatever action (steak) he wants. What is being corrected are untruths about the perceived advantages of a CRF action, especially in light of a member asking what CRF means. This is how this crap gets propagated in the internet echo chambers. Things such as "double feeds are impossible", not a "true CRF" if extractor snaps over rim, when most every every CRF design (1917 Enfield, Springfield 1903, Winchester 70, New Mausers etc) other than the original Mausers will do so. "Push feed plunger ejectors will leave brass in action when bolt worked slow", when it is precisely the opposite, standing ejectors on a CRF will leave brass in action when worked slow. This kinda BS gets echoed and passed on by those who don't know. Then guys think CRF actions are infallible, and express surprise and dismay when a video surfaces of one causing problems. I like and prefer CRF Mausers and Enfield based actions, but also realize that they are not magical. Have the steak, have the salmon, just don't be part of the problem of passing on bogus information.

Yeah we’re just poking a bit of fun, you were right to correct me for not explaining properly how the pf was leaving brass in the chamber. It does but because of the way I like to operate it, me being used to grabbing the brass in the way I can grab it from a CRF action. Doing it the same way doesn’t work on a pf as it ejects it quite far if you have a good spring.

 

[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.

First it wss the Model 700, but then Winchester changed the Model 70 to PF along with cheaper wood and pressed checkering. Others, like Browning, followed. The overall quality of American made rifles took a serious nose dive. From that time on riflemen have felt that the push feed action was one more element in a general decline of quality in firearms.

Now is a CRF an indication of a more reliable function than a PF? Generally, I think so. A friend of mine who was a gunsmith once told me that he had replaced many extractors from PF rifles, but never an extractor from a Mauser action. But along with my 53 year old M70, I also have a M700 from 1981 (44 years). Both rifles have been used to take many animals and have never failed, but I still have more faith in my Mauser actions when it comes to dangerous game.

 

[CoElkHunter]

First it wss the Model 700, but then Winchester changed the Model 70 to PF along with cheaper wood and pressed checkering. Others, like Browning, followed. The overall quality of American made rifles took a serious nose dive. From that time on riflemen have felt that the push feed action was one more element in a general decline of quality in firearms.

Now is a CRF an indication of a more reliable function than a PF? Generally, I think so. A friend of mine who was a gunsmith once told me that he had replaced many extractors from PF rifles, but never an extractor from a Mauser action. But along with my 53 year old M70, I also have a M700 from 1981 (44 years). Both rifles have been used to take many animals and have never failed, but I still have more faith in my Mauser actions when it comes to dangerous game.

+1 for a CRF action when hunting DG. Never have hunted DG yet, but one of my CZ 550s or Rugers will be my choice. For a PG hunt, I will and have used my Browning A and/or now X bolts.

 

[baxterb]

The thing about a Mauser/CRF is that it truly takes understanding how they work to get them working optimally (read that last word again). A lot of CRF will 'work' when not setup correctly, but when they are, there is nothing that beats them in my unenforceable opinion.

 

[roklok]

First it wss the Model 700, but then Winchester changed the Model 70 to PF along with cheaper wood and pressed checkering. Others, like Browning, followed. The overall quality of American made rifles took a serious nose dive. From that time on riflemen have felt that the push feed action was one more element in a general decline of quality in firearms.

Now is a CRF an indication of a more reliable function than a PF? Generally, I think so. A friend of mine who was a gunsmith once told me that he had replaced many extractors from PF rifles, but never an extractor from a Mauser action. But along with my 53 year old M70, I also have a M700 from 1981 (44 years). Both rifles have been used to take many animals and have never failed, but I still have more faith in my Mauser actions when it comes to dangerous game.

No argument here. PF is generally (not always) an element of rifles manufactured to meet a price point. I would say first it was the Rem 721, 722, and 725, predecessors of the Remington 700 developed in the late 1940s, that began the cheaper methods of production. They were eating into Winchesters sales for almost 15 years before the 700 was introduced in 1962 and Winchester's decline in '64. However, the Mosin Nagant was developed in the late 1880s-1891 and was push feed, no one ever accused it of being unreliable, it was built like the proverbial Russian tank, probably because it was a Russian rifle. As I have said before, I think most of the merits of CRF actions have more to do with the general robustness and quality of the entire rifle, not the method of feeding. CRFs are not magical, they can and do fail, and are also susceptible to improper operation, in some cases more so than push feeds. At any rate it is good to see new production options still available. I am content to build rifles on old actions. I am just finishing up a .375H&H project built on a 1935 production Remington 30 Express, in my opinion one of the finest actions available at any price.

 

[steve white]

I always thought that my Sako safari was controlled round feed, but apparently it does not meet the standard of "true CRF" even though it does take hold of the round and control it. You can even operate it upside down. But alas, it's just not good enough to make the cut....NOT!