Hello
Below there is a fairly lively debate about CRF, vs. push feed.

OK. I will admit a few things up front. I have never yet hunted Africa, and the largest thing I have ever launched is a 338 Win Mag.

But I have fired thousands upon thousands of rounds in 17 Rem, 220 Swift, 22-250, 223, 243, 30-06, 338 and 300 win Mags. And a few others. The only CRF rifle I have, or something that approximates it is a Ruger 77.

In that time, I can count the number of feed failures/extract failures on one hand. And these were times, when I just flat did something dumb.

So, in all honesty, how important is it really to have a CRF? Be honest with me, please, do the big rounds have that much of a problem staying under the extractor that claw is needed? Why might this be so? Recoil?

A rookie question.

Joe,

Can you say religious war?

There is a definite demarcation between what a PH needs to back-up clients in the field, and what the client can use.

I have used four rifles in Africa: two CRF and two push feed. The animals never noticed. PHs I have hunted with had a mix of push feed and CRF rifles.

It is a far more important issue on this forum than anywhere else in the world.

jim dodd

I suppose it depends on what level of risk you wish to take.

If you are the type of person who takes 2 spare tires hunting instead of just one, I would suggest controlled feed. I take 2 spare tires and controlled feed.

Look at the numbers.

How often will a PF in the hands of a competent shooter fail?

How often will a CRF in the hands of a competent shooter fail?

I think you could answer the question with a resounding "almost never"

CRF are superior, but not by very much.

Easy now Mac, just taking a realistic view of the situation. No need to YELL

I guess I will never learn...sex, religion, politics and CRF vs PF.

You just can't win. Even when you admit one is superior to the other.

I can recall two failures I have had with extraction while hunting. One was a CRF one was a PF. The one with a CRF was while on safari in Zimbabwe. I guess I am lucky that Impala do not charge!

Hardly conclusive data, but it does show that nothing is perfect, especially the operator. Both failures were my fault.

I have always openly said that CRF is better and preferable to a PF. Still I am flamed.

I guess there is no safe ground in this argument.

Wendell the bold print was not meant to indicate yelling, Sorry about that! No flame was intended, to any one, My question was to be added to the ones you asked, I simply thought you forgot that one!

PS: I edited the BOLD print out! That better?

[ 06-24-2002, 01:11: Message edited by: MacD37 ]

HunterJim,

Amen!!

Mac,
Once! Can happen with a CRF almost as easily as a Pushfeed since most are operator induced!

Todd E

Here are a couple of points to consider:

1. PF vs CRF is only an issue if your journey will take you in harm's way.

2. While CRF's are "designed" to be more reliable, design and production often to not equate. Only a "quality" CRF means anything. You will certainly be better served by a respectable PF than a cheap CRF.

3. Reliability and efficiency can only be achieved by combining an idiot-proof rifle with a rifle-proof idiot. User skills are an important factor is any rifle design.

I'm a confirmed controlled-feed advocate, but I agree with Kurt's analysis completely.

A reliable push-feed IS more reliable that a poorly adjusted and built controlled-feed, pure and simple.

However, a well-built, finely-adjusted controlled-feed rifle is the most reliable sort of bolt gun that you can carry, bar-none, especially for the skilled, experienced shooter.

AD

Mac, no problem

Pontification number next:

A cheap CRF action can be gunsmithed into something of high quality and reliability in function.

The highest quality PF is always a PF, no matter how much money is dumped into it.

Long ago I selected the Rem 40-X for match rifles and a Sako (L-61R) as the basis for a custom .375. It seems that I didn't know any better. I thought that the extractor on the Sako looked like the one on the Garand and what could be better or more serious than that action. Nothing I submit to you.

However I grew to appreciate the fine lines, workmanship and function of the old M-70. I have one that must have come from the Winchester custom shop in the 1950's and it's as slick as a rifle can be.

So now I am a CRF fan. I must have picked it up from some magazine article long before I heard of the internet.

As stated above a good push is better than a bad CRF. Also I broke the extractor on a P.F. M-70. Maybe the new ones are better.

Without throwing more fuel on the flames I would prefer the mauser, CZ, Dak, and Win M70 all in CRF for DGH in a bolt rifle. Even have a Rem custom shop rifle in .375, extremely accurate and a good shooter, but it doesn't even get used for buff or bear.
Strangely enough, We CRF advocates are not alone as very few Rem PF rifles are sold in .375 and above compared to the CRF versions. Must be a message there!!!!!

"The buff may not care, but the hunter might".
pm

I don't really care what someone else carries on a dangerous game hunt, that is their business and their right.

I will carry a CFR, A tweeked M-70 or a Mauser. end of story.

In the real world, all other things (quality control etc.) being equal, a PF is about 99% as reliable as a CRF. However, at least to me, a rifle, particularlly a 'safari rifle' just doesn't look right without that big extractor sitting there on the bolt. Make mine a Mauser or one of it's clones, even if it is only for mostly aesthetic reasons.

The Remington 700, with its puny and failure-prone thin little piece of a-little-bit-of-nothing excuse for an extractor is not even in the same class as something like a Sako.

Once, in excitement and while in a very awkward semi-prone position, I admit to short-shucking my Sako and failed to feed the second round on a hurry-up shot. Thanks to its design, I was able to clear it quickly and insert a round directly into the chamber for a successful follow-up shot. With many CRF actions, a round inserted directly into the chamber creates a hopeless jam.

Moral to story: Learn to shoot and manipulate your rifle efficiently, no matter what the action. Cycling failures in well-made bolt actions are rare with experienced shooters and occur about as often in one action type as another. While I prefer a push-feed, I would be equally happy with a CRF so long as it could be demonstrated that it NEVER failed to accept a round place directly in the chamber.

What do you guys think....

Ginger or Maryanne...

Nine of of ten PH's said that they prefered MaryAnn.

But 10 out of 10 said if there was nothing better, they would take Ginger!

Personally I am a Mary Ann fan

Is Mary Ann = Paul Mauser?

Is Ginger = Weatherby Mark V?

Actually I like to think of Mary Ann as "Control Feed"

And Ginger as "Push Feed"

I am not trying to flame but for the life of me I can't understand this issue. I can't remember a time when I had a failure with a well set up push feed. What exactly is suppose to happen? Just played with my Rem 660 and the dummy 350 Rem Mag rounds will feed when the rifle is upside down! What are these failures people are talking about?

North of 60

The issue concerns 1 time in a 1000, and it only matters if your life is on the line. Guys like Ray, who make a living chasing dangerous stuff, need the reliability of a claw extractor. They learn the rifle well and trust their lives to it.

If you are shooting non-dangerous game at football field distances, use a rifle that you are comfortable with, be it a $300 Remington or a $3000 Heym.

Well maybe, but I have over 1800 reloaded rounds through my 350 with no failures at all. Is this CRF advantage theoretical or real?

The CF advantage is real, but only in the relatively few situations where hunting mirrors combat. One has to be tired, sweaty, filthy and scared sh-tless to really experience and appreciate this advantage. The CF was invented to compensate for human (and inhuman) errors that arise under these conditions.

For all other hunting and shooting situations, there is no noticeable difference, just preference.

Here is a general rule: If your hunting situation is such that common sense tells you that a single shot rifle is downright dangerous, then use a controlled feed.

Dateline Zimbabwe - 21 May 2002.

The novice safari hunter boards the bakke at daybreak, enroute to pursuing his lifelong dream of stalking and hopefully taking a Cape buffalo. The PH has laid his stopper in a soft buffalo hide case across the dash. The novice notices to his horror that this is a post-64 M70 .458, the dreaded push-feed version! What to do? Doesn't this man ever read anything on the web?? The PH grins and explains why he uses this piece - it was all he could afford when he started his professional career. It also works...

This particular M70 has written off over fifty elephants, some in extremis, and has cut down MANY buffs in years of control work - in addition to stopping many that were poorly shot by clients since the rifle was put to work in 1984. It has faithfully done its job on DG every time. I'll bet he'd take a CRF rifle if you gave it to him, but has every reason to think his present rig is okay. Can anyone argue with that???

Jodar , being backed by a push feed Winchester and the notorious poor killer the .458 to boot , you are dam lucky to be alive !

[ 06-25-2002, 18:01: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

A fellow who works at the local gun shop made the observation that the rifles issued to the men who hunt the world's most dangerous game (enemy soldiers) have never been CRF.

Hmmm.

(I happen to have one of each and enjoy them both).

Rick.

Rick, your gunshop man must have overlooked the fact that several million Mauser 98s (other versions as well) plus 1903 Springfields, etc. (all controlled round feed bolt actions) have been issued to the armies of the world in decades past. CRF bolt actions were designed first and foremost for military use.

AD

Although failures have been known for both designs over the years, its still debated with each side giving testimony as to their respective action's relability over the other.
One thing that is not mentioned much is it's human error that is heavily responsible for the failures, followed less by mechanical problems. Its easy to blame the action design, then to accept it that you goofed.

What may cause human error at the most unopportune time, is another debate.

As to bolt guns, I prefer CRF, but have never had a problem with a PF anyway.
I've never yet experienced human error in a life or death situation, but Murphy is waiting to spring it on me someday, I'm sure. ~~~Suluuq

[ 06-26-2002, 14:11: Message edited by: Rusty Gunn ]

I just got back from RSA where I had the privelege of videoing two first timers with their 300 RUMs hunting plains game. One rifle was a stock Rem 700 with SS barrel and laminated stock and the other was a new Hill Country custom with Rem 700 action fibreglass stock and SS Lilja barrel. The stock rifle experienced no feed problems at all with the hunter emptying the magazine twice on animals. The Hill Country developed an extraction gremlin resulting in one day and a half marathon Eland followup. CRF versus PF? For me, I prefer the CRF. However, this is the only instance of extraction/feed failure I have ever personally witnessed. Some tweaking should take care of it. Now, both of these rifles sported 26" barrels with muzzle brakes. The noise was visibly disturbing to the PH causing numerous comments. This guy had the habit of getting as close to the hunter as he could in order to witness bullet impact and animal reaction. Those things pissed him off. Following behind the hunters I couldn't help but notice them getting hung up on thorns and twigs on low hanging branches and bushes. Reccomendation.....if hunting in heavy bush- leave them at home. Want a happy PH?-leave them at home.

You guys can rave all you want about the wonders of a pushfeed rifle, but I have seen them fail time and time again and I have not seen that happen with doubles, Mausers and pre-64 M-70..Just fact not fiction...If you believe otherwise then hunt with a pushfeed, but I am, like most folks, a product of my enviorment and I will never use a pushfeed and particularly a Rem. 700..

Allen,

From your post:

CRF bolt actions were designed first and foremost for military use.

I am not sure that is a good endorsement.

Also, don't forget the 303 was a push feed.

I still think the CRF has to be better set up to be as reliable as Push Feed.

Any gunshop in Australia will tell you there have been far more problems with the M70 CRF than the previous push feeds. Obviously there is a quality control problem but it also highlights the fact tha CRF must be set up better than PF for equal relaibility.

Personally, I still think the main advantage of CRF is that it is just nicer to use. Even simple things like running ammo through the magazine.

Given the choice I would prefer a well set up CRF, but reliable feeding would not be the reason for the preference.

Mike