I ask if you have such a rifle and, if so, was this rifle a general factory offering or one blessed with a degree of hand fitting by a skilled gunsmith? Feel free to take this anywhere you wish in regard to bolt action design, reputation and personal preference.

Yes, I have owned several rifles which have NEVER failed to feed, fire, extract and eject. Something like a dozen Remington Model 700�s. In twenty five years of owning them I�ve had ONE failure to eject when a sliver of brass got stuck in the ejector pin hole and wedged it. The cartridge was extracted but not ejected. I used a cartridge nose to push the pin in and out a couple times to free the brass sliver and the problem has never recurred. Oh, wait, I did have one hangfire on the 7mm Mag. when I was using standard primers and I think IMR 4831 on a very cold morning. So I guess that leaves 10 rifles with a perfect track record.

Now I�ve only owned five Winchester Model 70�s so far. One has not been shot much so let�s say four that have been worked with. One has had the safety pop off of position three (locked bolt) while slung and subsequently a bush opened the bolt and lost the round. Never had that happen with the Remingtons. The safeties on four of the five Model 70�s are very, very easy to pop out of position three. One .30-06 from the Custom Shop would drop the last round onto the magazine follower when extracting it because the ejector claw was not tensioned tight enough to hold the cartridge. That one also had the ejector blade stick in it�s slot so would not eject any rounds. I had to take the rifle out of the stock to fix that and then it happened again. Had to polish the ejector blade and the slot to fix that problem permanently. The other Custom Shop rifle in .375 H&H had a small burr on the bolt face that would damage cartridge rims on the first firing. Upon all subsequent firings the bolt would stick about halfway up. I could not get enough leverage to open it from my shoulder unless I slammed my hand under the handle. Removing that burr from the bolt face cured that problem and now the .375 is infallible, at least for the last 50 rounds or so.

All of my Winchesters have been �short ejected� on several occasions. I did not pull the bolt back hard enough so the ejected round just fell back into the magazine. The Remingtons always throw the empty case clear as soon as the neck clears the front receiver ring, no matter how fast or slow the bolt is pulled back.

All of the Winchesters will bind the bolts if they are not pushed straight in. Put some upward or downward pressure on the handle as you push it forward and it will stick tight. I have polished and greased the wear points and that has helped the problem, but practicing a panic reload I can bind the bolts on all of them at least some of the time. And by bind I mean they are stuck tight � they will not go forward. If you push straight forward they work fine. I have one Remington .338 that will bind like this but none of the others will, push up or down on the handle as hard as you want and the bolt still travels forward.

Now that y�all think I�m a Winchester basher, let me say that the design of the Winchester is head and shoulders above the Remington as a pure HUNTING rifle. My main hunting rifle is that �06 mentioned above that lost the round and when I went to Africa the Remingtons stayed at home and two Winchesters went with me.

The Winchesters all feed slicker when you work the bolt right. The Remingtons all take a bit more effort to feed the round out of the mag and certainly take more effort to put in battery as you have to snap the extractor over the case rim. The longer, round bolt handle of the Winchester is far more convenient for quick manipulation than that short flattened nub on the end of the Remington bolt handle.

There is good design and then there is good execution of the design. The Winchester is designed better but apparently it needs much more care in fitting and assembly for all to work well. Once fitted well it is very reliable. Wonder why the Remingtons just all seem to get up and go right out of the box?

FWIW, I also have a Kimber of Oregon Model 84 in .223. That is a little mini-CRF action. The mag holds five rounds, but if you put five in it, feed and fire the first one, when you open the bolt the next round in line jumps out of the feed rails almost every time. Put four in the mag and it works just fine.

I think I�m going to switch to Ruger #1�s. Only had two of those but they fed , fired and ejected reliably every time.

Perhaps a Rifle should be "well used" before use on African or other game.

Does this mean a worked-over ________ (insert your favorite action name here).
After feeding and operating with out fail for say 200 or more rounds is now suitable?

Jim's Post just dimenished that last little bit of uncertainity that I had about my
Remington actioned, 416 !

THANKS JIM!
JB

Is this "CRF" thing overkill ? I hesitated in buying a LH Rem custom-shop .416 over the CRF issue. By the time I decided to buy the rifle anyway it had been sold, litteraly the day before I got there.

I lost a .416 LH that had $400 knocked off it because of the CRF issue. Im now sorry I hesitated............10

Chris

Haveing said all that, I will say that I have owned a few Remington 700s, 600s, and 788s, and have had few malfuctions with them, but there have been some. Most of those were direcly atributible to the push feed system. Usually because of grit getting into the springloaded ejector cylinder, blocking it's operation, and Africa is a dusty place. The rest were because of cartridges falling out of line, with the chamber, or out of the rifle, because of the rifle being held at angles other than perfectly upright. I have had one malfuction in a double rifle, but it was while working up loads, and a load that was loaded too hot, froze the action. This required the removal of the fore arm, and the removal of the barrel assembly, and punch out the cases with a cleaning rod. This is a thing that will not happen in the field, simply because one does not use rounds in a double that are not loaded to regulate in that rifle for hunting.

Here I will say I own, and have owned over 100 rifles built on Mauser actions, and I have "NEVER" had one malfuction with a rifle on either a millitary, or commercial action.

To me it is dumb to purposely build a rifle,on an action that is technically inferior,simply because it is cheaper, or to prove a point, that will be used to protect your life, or the lives of others against an animal that is not only capable, but quite willing to kill you. One of those
technically inferior systems is push feed with a plunger type ejector. Chris's redeeming the push feed by listing military rifles as examples, is not valid because, those are all either simi-auto, or full auto rifles that use some of the chamber pressure, to not only open the breech, but to actually push the case out of the chamber, as well, and have to be made as cheaply as is possible, so a re-supply is quick. The breech block moves rearward, before the chamber pressure has subsided. There is no other way to make a auto rifle to work. There isn't any place in hunting of dangerous animals where an Automatic rifle is the best system. In most places autos are outlawed for such purposes. Besides this all the rifles mentioned are chambered for small rounds, the largest being the still small 30-06 in the M1.

To top this off several of the rifles he listed are notorius for malfuctioning, the M14 especially, the exception being the M1 Garrand. The idea of the military rifle designs today is not accuracy,or reliability, as much as it is rate of fire, and to fill the air with bullets, and hope the enemy runs into one or more of those bullets. I fail to see the corralation with this, and hunting of AFRICAN GAME, since simiautos, and the 30-06 both are illegal for dangerous game in Africa. I certainly would not want to be in the area where anyone shot into a herd of Cape Buffalo with a M1, 30-06 Gov. much less the other smaller ones listed.

------------------
..Mac >>>===(x)===>
DUGABOY DESIGNS
Collector/trader of fine double rifles, and African wildlife art

[This message has been edited by boltman (edited 08-04-2001).]

The one factor I did not mention in my first post is consistency. These weapons are designed to operate within specific parameters, thus the bolt stroke is consistent under nearly all conditions. Lesson? Pick your weapon and learn to operate it so well that it doesn't require conscious thought! In a critical situation you will function the way you have trained yourself to. At the bench or in the field, cycle the bolt the same way each time: hard back, hard forward. Safe-to-fire: left, right, forward, back? This should not require conscious thought. Your only thought is the sight picture and trigger press. The rifle "operates itself." This is far more important than whether it is CRF or push feed.

Chris

I will agree with you concerning the ability of the M1/M14 and the Kalashnikov to function when covered with mud been there done that. The mauser will function that why also! The M16 however is a piece of .... and nothing but a full auto gopher gun. That being said I agree also with the gentlemen who have stated the obvious truths about modern military actions.

I challenge someone to find a dependable military bolt action that was not a CFR.

Todd E

Chris,
You are absolutely right in your opinion that the practice that makes a given rifle an extention of one's body is the greatest safety factor you can come by. Given that a person may do the same practice with either of these systems, the only difference is that one is more reliable, machanicly, than the other. CRF is just a system that is a very cheap insurance policy, against the mistakes that all shooters are bound to make, sooner, or later. Especially when faced with a Cape Buffalo closeing fast at 10 yards. My opinion is, why, since both are available, not use the more reliable one of the two!

There is only one valid reason for pushfeed over CRF, and that is, the push feed rifle is cheaper to make, but the only value is to the manufacturer, not the buyer/shooter.

------------------
..Mac >>>===(x)===>
DUGABOY DESIGNS
Collector/trader of fine double rifles, and African wildlife art

AD

Actually, the M700 replaced highly modified M1903 Springfield rifles. Sometimes the M70 pre64 was used, but those usually were Spec Ops rifles not the Marines.

Todd E

quote:

---

Originally posted by Todd E:
I challenge someone to find a dependable military bolt action that was not a CFR.

Todd E

---

As I recall the Lee Enfield is not CRF.

DD

Chris

Todd E

quote:

---

Originally posted by Todd E:
Both examples are pre Mauser 98 designs. The British Pattern 14 followed along the Mauser example possibly because it is better.

Todd E

---

Can't let you get away with that Todd! There are many who would argue that the Lee Enfield in its various guises, principally the SMLE and the No4, was THE combat bolt rifle of all time.

The attached link is to an excellent article which charts the history of the British service rifle including the P14 versus SMLE debate.

http://www.african-hunter.com/site/firearms/303rifle_01.htm

With regard to modern military weapons being push feed I think the key point is that they are fed by a powerful spring mechanism designed to strip a round from the magazine and chamber it before Newton's law of gravity gets a chance to get in the way. In my experience such weapons will cycle whichever way up they are held.

From a procurement point of view CRF tends to be a more expensive action to produce so I guess the R&D boffins spend more time looking at push feed.

Big semi autos - How about the Barratt Light Fifty. I only had a go with it once but it seemed to work OK. I was with a friend who was running an EOD section in Bosnia touching off home made claymores with the Barratt. Actually they were called TV mines on account of their size. Nasty.

On heavy recoiling bolt actions a heavy spring and generous trigger guard are required to prevent the floor plate latch unlatching from inadvertant contact of pinkies under recoil - facing a buffalo charge with rounds around the feet and floor plate swinging free is bad news.

Likewise I agree with Herter that a safety should lock the bolt so that again in the heat of the moment it is not possible to attempt to fire a rifle whose bolt has sprung up.

Three position safeties are for me another invitation to pull the trigger and have nothing happen.

Maybe my comment re detachable magazines was a little unfair as you will be keeping yours in eyesight all the time. In the Army you might get issued magazines for every duty with attendant problems. My 'strong' experience is a mixture of having done some things and having been in tight(ish) spots and knowing that what can go wrong in such situations invariably WILL go wrong (a la Sods Law).

I did dump the rounds when shooting a deer. I had a slightly slack hold and hey presto a brass shower. A stronger spring cured this.
I'm happy to live with a modified loading technique to get 4 in reliably.

I thouroughly agree with you on the matching rifle. Anything you might theoreticaly gain from another action is often outweighed by unfamiliarity of a rifle you might not get to use very often but which when you do have to use it you need to use well or else!

Carlos Hathcock, never got charged by 2000 pounds of hate, besides he seldom fired but once... A sniper rifle and DGR have absolutely nothing in common, short of "go bang"....

My call is I have seen more 700 screw up on Safari than Rugers and more Rugers than M-70's and the Mauser never seems to fail if properly tuned...Thats my observations over the last 50 plus years and thats all I can go by or at least all that I will go by...

Good judgement comes from experience, and a lot of that came from bad judement and gents put'en that cat back in the bag is a hell of a lot harder than gett'n it out.....so when that pushfeed jams let your last thought be this post.....

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com